"Adversarial narratives": when fact-checking is not enough
The march for censoring dissident voices in Australia and abroad is picking up the pace.
"The only thing that we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.”
Georg Hegel
It all sounds taken straight out of a conspiracy forum. Picture this: an agency with global scope and reach with the explicit mission of censoring dissidence against the establishment around the world, and whomever dares to question and bring evidence against the prevailing narratives and “The Science” (that is, of course, the politically approved version of science). Further, an agency that is also co-founded by someone from the World Economic Forum (WEF) and someone from the US Intelligence Community, funded by Governments and foundations around the world — some of them backed by every conspiracy theorist’s favourite supervillain George Soros.
I wished it was just a conspiracy taken from some fringe corner of the internet, indeed. Except it is not; not by a long shot. If you have been paying any attention to the way news and political messages are being peddled to the masses since 2016 — and especially since the advent of COVID — you will not be surprised by most of what I will share with you here. The surprise, to me at least, came from learning about the actual existence of an agency with such reach, scope, and widespread governmental support; support that is given by many supposedly democratic regimes.
Enter The Global Disinformation Index (GDI).
According to its own website, the GDI was born from “the need for transparent, independent neutral disinformation risk ratings across the open web”. The GDI “aim[s] to disrupt the business model of disinformation, breaking the perverse incentives that exist to create and disseminate disinformation online”, by providing “independent, neutral and transparent data and intelligence to advise policymakers and business leaders about how to combat disinformation and its creators”. It creates risk ratings for websites, which “are then used by advertising technology companies to ensure advertisers money and brands do not end up supporting high risk websites.” This all sounds desirable and even noble, and quite deserving of funding and support, except for the fact that they define disinformation not as something factually untrue — which is what most of us would say when prompted — but as
“adversarial narratives, which are intentionally misleading; financially or ideologically motivated; and/or, aimed at fostering long-term social, political or economic conflict; and which create a risk of harm by undermining trust in science or targeting at-risk individuals or institutions.” (emphasis added)
The GDI’s own co-founder, WEF’s Clare Melford, clearly stated in a 2021 interview at the London School of Economics (see between timestamps 4:40 and 7:30) that they are past the (apparently unhelpful) definition of disinformation as simple untruths, which leads them to the “more useful” definition of disinformation, which is “content on this site or this particular article is content that is anti-immigrant, content that is anti-women, content that is antisemitic” (timestamp 7:07). She even goes as far as using an example from a US conservative website (Breitbart) to show that although every story shown in the example extract was factually true in her assessment, they must be called misinformation since they are being used to push anti-immigrant sentiment. British sites such as UnHerd, famous for publishing a diverse range of political views on hot topics and always with an inquisitive and respectful approach, have therefore been labelled as “risky” and been marginalised from ad revenue for simply having allegedly “anti-trans” guests — a label that has become all too facile and meaningless lately, just like most of the labels being used to paint dissidents for the crime of not towing the line. It is therefore unsurprising that the list of least and most risky websites in the US has a somewhat clear left-right divide:
In Australia, the news landscape looks as follows (full report here):
UnHerd’s own research states that the GDI is supported by the UK government, the European Union, the German Foreign Office and the US State Department. Australia? I could not find information to the date of this publication, but it would be a highly plausible hypothesis considering how keen Australian governments — both the Coalition and Labour and even supposed independents — are to control the information on the internet either via ACMA or via the eSafety Commissioner. The latter is, after all, a product of the Coalition, and a seat currently occupied by a current WEF employee (surprise surprise). The GDI is, quite clearly, nothing short of government-sponsored machinery for the censorship of political and scientific dissidence.
Australian governments need to be reminded that while we might not have a First Amendment protecting free speech like Americans do, we are nonetheless signatories to the Human Rights Act (which states freedom of expression as an inalienable Human Right) and we put these values as test to immigrants wanting to become Australian citizens. But it looks as if all of this is just for show, as the Australian governments’ actions speak clearly in a different direction.
Although countries from all over the world are pushing to control the internet for evident self-serving purposes, Australia is nonetheless a case for amusement and concern as it appears to be the first country wanting to control it worldwide, rather than just within its own jurisdiction. Yes, you read that correctly. As I write this column, the current Australian eSafety Commissioner and X (Twitter) are battling in court over videos about the latest Sydney stabbing incidents. The problem? The eSafety ‘commissar’ — as Elon Musk kindly and quite aptly named the Commissioner — wants the videos to be removed worldwide, as she alleges that Australians with a VPN can still access the videos that have now been removed from Australia. Perhaps the Commissioner needs to be reminded of the Streisand effect, as the more she calls for things to be censored, the more they will be searched for and/or pushed underground, away from her purview, which I believe is the opposite of what she wants.
If you are still not sure why all of this is a problem of catastrophic proportions (who in their right mind would support having violent videos disseminated online, right?), let me share with you how The Conversation recently put it:
Do Australian courts have the right to decide what foreign citizens, located overseas, view online on a foreign-owned platform?
Anyone inclined to answer “yes” to this question should perhaps also ask themselves whether they are equally happy for courts in China, Russia and Iran to determine what Australians can see and post online in Australia.
What does this have to do with mis- or disinformation, and wider censorship? Because this is simply where things spill next, if global take-down orders ensue. While The Guardian notices that the eSafety Commissioner “doesn’t have any powers in relation to misinformation”, it appears as if the Commissioner herself either does not understand this or does not care, as she has already used her powers to issue a take-down order over a tweet that misgenders a transgender person, alleging that “an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that it is likely that the material is intended to cause serious harm to the complainant”. Going back full circle to the “adversarial narratives” described earlier. This is not the first time the ‘commissar’ has revealed her true agenda, though: she was already urging social media platforms to remove “hate speech” and “misinformation“ during The Voice referendum debate not long ago. The track record of the eSafety Commissioner is just one internet search away.
We are witnessing, in real time, the slow and painful death of journalism, critical thinking, and democracy. And we are allowing it.
One would be forgiven for thinking that with trust in governments and public institutions declining around the world (Australia included) it is high time that government officials cleaned up their act and reformulated their actions plans to regain public trust — trust that is slowly slipping away, here in Australia at least, in the form of votes to minor parties. It appears, however, as if the opposite were true: they are doubling down on their efforts of controlling the flow of information, with the hopes that dissidents never get to publish their data and points of view if they are deemed ‘harmful’ to protected people, narratives, and Institutions. What we witnessed during COVID — that is, the active and continuous suppression of dissidence (even scientific, fact-based dissidence) — is now being supercharged.
Hegel’s famous phrase quoted at the start of this piece appears apt to encapsulate a sentiment that I am sure will be shared by many: are we really this inept at understanding what history has to teach us about ourselves? Some may lean to forgive their misguided representatives if they consider history to refer to distant events, not held at the forefront of memory, or not covered by school or university curricula. But we are now talking about things that happened just a few years ago! It hasn’t even been five years! What is the excuse then?! In my view, there is simply no excuse, as the truth is laid bare: government officials around the world — and their supporting acolytes both inside and outside government — are simply religiously hellbent to bring about the world they want to see, regardless of the consequences for important democratic pillars as such as freedom of expression, freedom of speech, journalistic independence, and so on. Are there words outside the domain of nouns such as zealotry, fanaticism, and the likes better equipped to describe such blind pursuit of a goal or such flagrant disregard of any alternative opinion or any fact not supportive of the running agenda? The second- and third-order effects are not difficult to imagine, and they have been already costing the health, careers, and livelihood of people around the world as they face censorship and even death. Not even our most vulnerable kids are immune to how ideology can impact them.
How did we get here? Was not Australia a liberal democracy? Institutions like the GDI and the eSafety Commissioner are the product of our disconnection with politics, our over-reliance in government, and our blind trust that these officials always had our best interests at heart, despite ample evidence of the contrary, and despite an instinctive knowledge that many, if not most of them, are there for self-serving purposes — deep down inside you know it, too. Perhaps we have all been too busy with our lives, working more than ever, and gasping for distractions and time off engaging with new technologies. This is what happens when we do not get involved with the real world: the activists take over.
But it is never too late. We can change things and protect the democratic beliefs we deeply cherish. Those who do learn from history, few as they may be, know that humans work on incentives, rather than on logic or facts. Government officials are no different: they have an incentive to stay in power and remain elected, and to do what the people need them to do to make them happy — which is why controlling the flow of public information is so critical: the vulgus must not be led to believe they are being lied to, or that their voices are being actively and consciously betrayed. This is where people like you and me can make a difference.
The easiest thing to do, and I what ask others to do, is to create more awareness: share this post using the button at the end of the column. If you think you can do more than just that, I invite you to write to your representatives with your concerns over these topics (if you do not know who they are, you can easily search for them here). If you agree that institutions like the GDI and the eSafety Commissioner do more harm than good, it is time you make yourself heard.
Never underestimate the power of your own voice. It may be small in isolation, but in combination with others it can bring down entire governments. We should not wait until the eleventh hour to make ourselves heard, because, believe me, when the eleventh hour comes and these censorship pushes have come to fruition, we will not be heard. And only God will know how much suffering we will have caused ourselves and our loved ones by then.