Disinformation - Online - Dangerous

From Green Policy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Digital Rights Tag Cloud from GreenPolicy360.net.png

GreenPolicy360: The development of science over the ions is, as the song goes, "a long and winding road" but here we are in the 21st Century and still facing ancient themes. The "Scientific Revolution", as it was called, was based on ancient knowledge -- and arguments -- that carried through the "Middle Ages" and led to the "Age of Enlightenment", the "Age of Reason", and in Europe the end of "Feudalism", and beginning of "Mercantilism", "Colonialism", "Capitalism" and "Socialism". Social and political revolutions across the world in the 1800s brought on conflict and wars that carried into and across the 1900s with two world wars and nuclear weapons now threatening civilization -- and humanity's existence. Now as the 21st Century reveals new reality, we look out at mixed economies, a heated struggle between democratic and authoritarian governments. New technology and communication networks are used and misused, a global "Internet Age" connecting nations across our planet. We are creating the beginnings of a new electronic, computer era with all its benefits, knowledge, and threats -- an online 360, 24/7/365 system that is 'always on' and shaping our world view.

Within the Internet, the "World Wide Web", the 'lit, open web' and the 'dark web', a different neural network than any before the 21st Century is powering up, with machine learning and artificial intelligence on the near horizon. Computer-assisted reach, engagement, and persuasive power of digital communication is just beginning to feel its full power.

Dis- and Mis-info has spread throughout the first generation of the "Net" and "Web". Social Media and Big Data marketing, targeting, and manipulation have become ubiquitous. Today's Digital Citizen has to recognize, confront, and deal with this e-world of disinformation.

Here are an array of democratic ideas and tech-tools presented on GreenPolicy360 to assist:

Digital Citizen

Digital Rights

Fact Checking

Fact Checking and Embedded Links

Merchants of Doubt

Mobile Internet

Money in Politics

Online Privacy

Privacy on the Net-Online Rights

Strategic Policy-Internet Online Rights

Virtual Private Network

Wikipedia, Wikimedia, MediaWiki, and wiki

World Wide Web


Against a Backdrop of the Worldwide Rise of the Internet Comes Worldwide Cyber and Political Power Moves

The US is far from totalitarian regimes uses of the Net for control (Russia, China stand out)

The struggle in the US for liberties, freedom and free speech, privacy and constitutional rights continues on...

In a democratic republic citizens have responsibilities to protect rights and defend against attacks on democracy

Here's how one news voice looks at an upcoming Supreme Court case that will act to define cyber limits and rights...

March 17, 2024 / NYT

Three years after Mr. Trump’s posts about rigged voting machines and stuffed ballot boxes went viral, he and his allies have achieved a stunning reversal of online fortune. Social media platforms now provide fewer checks against the intentional spread of lies about elections.

“The people that benefit from the spread of disinformation have effectively silenced many of the people that would try to call them out,” said Kate Starbird, a professor at the University of Washington whose research on disinformation made her a target of the effort.

It took aim at a patchwork of systems, started in Mr. Trump’s administration, that were intended to protect U.S. democracy from foreign interference. As those systems evolved to address domestic sources of misinformation, federal officials and private researchers began urging social media companies to do more to enforce their policies against harmful content.

That work has led to some of the most important First Amendment cases of the internet age, including one to be argued on Monday at the Supreme Court. That lawsuit, filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, accuses federal officials of colluding with or coercing the platforms to censor content critical of the government. The court’s decision, expected by June, could curtail the government’s latitude in monitoring content online.

The arguments strike at the heart of an unsettled question in modern American political life: In a world of unlimited online communications, in which anyone can reach huge numbers of people with unverified and false information, where is the line between protecting democracy and trampling on the right to free speech?


A Presidential Election Year and the News Is Ominous

Disinformation and Misinformation Are On the Rise
'Attack Politics', 'Artificial Intelligence', 'Bots and Cyber Warfare', 'Conspiracies and Click Bait', the Media Landscape is Losing Trust

An increasing number of voters have proven susceptible to disinformation from former President Donald Trump and his allies; artificial intelligence technology is ubiquitous; social media companies have slashed efforts to rein in misinformation on their platforms; and attacks on the work and reputation of academics tracking disinformation have chilled research.

“On one hand, this should feel like January 2020,” said Claire Wardle, co-director of Brown University’s Information Futures Lab, who studies misinformation and elections, referring to the presidential contenders four years ago. “But after a pandemic, an insurrection and a hardening of belief that the election was stolen, as well as congressional investigations into those of us who work in this field, it feels utterly different.”

A Reminder as the US Enters a Presidential Campaign Year

As a new social media platform pushes out extreme verbiage and a voluminous number of aggressive statements by a former president, who continues to claim he did not lose the 2020 election, and campaign rallies report constant threats and calls for revenge...

Focus on facts, Facts count

Fact Checking

* https://greenpolicy360.net/w/Fact_Checking

Washington Post

By the end of his term, Trump had accumulated 30,573 untruths during his presidency — averaging about 21 erroneous claims a day.

Trump made 30,573 false or misleading claims as president. Nearly half came in his final year.



'Act local' (in your community), Poynter Institute suggests

Amid escalating national/international conflicts and crisis, accompanied by dire news and social media attacks
Bring facts and information missing from the current mix of news and opinion

Nextdoor and Facebook local groups are the main places, but millions also exchange information in local communities on Reddit, WhatsApp and old-fashioned local email listservs.

Journalists need to be in these groups for four reasons: That’s where the readers are. That’s where the misinformation is. That’s where the story ideas are. And that’s how trust gets rebuilt.

Nextdoor now has sites in 330,000 communities, reaching 53 million people. By contrast, the collective audience — print and digital — of all American newspapers is 24.3 million on weekdays, according to the Pew Research Center. That’s right, Nextdoor’s reach is on par, if not greater than, that of America’s newspapers.

Local Facebook groups are likely just as big, if not bigger.


Fog of War

Opinion / In association with StrategicDemands.com

Amplified by barrages across global social media landscapes, an online war is accompanying war in the Middle East. The surprise incursion of Hamas forces into Israel, and Israel's mobilization and declaration of war, has grown into a worldwide battle for hearts and minds. In previous wars of the 20th/21st centuries, propaganda was to be expected. This war, following the expansion of the Internet into the everyday lives of billions on Earth, in both the global north and south, east and west, has brought new levels, billions of dollars-rubles-yuan etc. in psyops / dis- and mis-information / skirmishes / e- and bot-attacks / crypto incursions / gaslighting / military communications disruption and targeting / data-gathering by intelligence services and operational actions / monitoring by remote agents (e.g. from private sector satellite services) and a host of related sigint (signals intelligence), elint (electronic intelligence) and humint (human intel ops, online/internet ops)...

The recent Reuters associated "Digital News Report"' on the state of online news media addresses the international range/reach, engagement and power of online influencers. News, contemporary events, ideas, opinions opinions reaching out to hearts and minds, available for every connected life on the planet, begins to bring public facing elements of this new online battlefield into view.

The type of war reporting that has been in evidence in previous wars has radically changed, as has the audience. There are no longer media 'gatekeepers' as they used to be, in control of most all news, opinion, in newspaper/magazine and on broadcast TV channels. As corporate news began to venture out in earnest during the Vietnam war, using reporters in the field with video cameras and broadcasting 'live-on-tape' coverage and wire-service 'as it happened' photography to Americans in the front of their TVs and papers, the world of media became last century techniques. The new century brought the wars of the Middle- and Near-East, often delivered from 'embedded' journalists (with military limiting their embedded coverage) to a larger audience. And with early 2000s roll-out of the internet/connectivity and citizen journalists, then digital smartphones, a network called 24/7/365 became the norm. Ubiquitous coverage and near instant worldwide sharing is here and now, for good and bad.

In the so-called "Global South", arraigned often in counterpoint and often in opposition to former colonial powers of the "Global North", the latest digital communication technologies are being utilized with the results delivering diverse and multi-layered opinions of the military actions of the Israel-Gaza war. The US, Israel and allies are being seen in new ways. The geopolitical conflict of the US and Russia, as well as China are engaged deeply in this struggle for hearts and minds.

The age old axioms about truth getting lost in the "fog of war" holds considerable power now, in these connected times where social and online media is reaching places and influencing minds as never before...

Content creators surge past legacy media

(Intro from the Publisher) This year’s Reuters Institute Digital News Report provides further evidence that, even as much of the news industry globally has struggled in the face of the first waves of the move to a digital, mobile, and platform-dominated media environment, it now faces a much more fundamental change driven by generations who have grown up with and rely almost entirely on various digital media.

Whether or not legacy media feel they have completed their initial digital transformation from print- or broadcast-focused to digitally focused brands with a compelling news website and app, they now face a continual transformation of digital as generations come of age who eschew direct discovery for all but the most appealing brands, have little interest in many conventional news offers oriented towards older generations’ habits, interests, and values, and instead embrace the more participatory, personable, and personalised options offered via platforms, often looking beyond legacy platforms to new entrants (many of whom drive few referrals to news and do not prioritise news).

While there are important differences between countries and within generations, and no single uniform pattern of behaviour and preferences, it is important to underline that we have every reason to expect this to be a one-way change: people’s information needs and interests evolve in the course of their life, but their platform preferences rarely regress. Those born in the 1980s did not suddenly come to prefer landline phones over mobiles when they became parents or bought a house, nor did those born in the 1960s return to black-and-white television when they entered middle age. There are no reasonable grounds for expecting that those born in the 2000s will suddenly come to prefer old-fashioned websites, let alone broadcast and print, simply because they grow older. The public is voting with its attention and money, and – despite the very real reservations over uneven trustworthiness, the risks of harassment and misinformation, and sometimes problematic business and data protection practices – they are overwhelmingly, everywhere, voting for digital media. That is the media environment the public embraces, and the ‘new normal’ where journalists and news media have to carve out their places if they want to connect with the public.

The Digital News Report account for more than half the world’s population...

The increasing number and diversity of markets covered – including 11 in Asia, five in South America, three in Africa and North America, as well as 24 in Europe – have led us to compare fewer data points across the whole sample and to focus on meaningful comparisons across markets that are broadly similar. We’ve provided more detail about differences in polling samples in both the methodolog pages and the relevant country pages...


Browser plugin that rates the credibility of news and information websites <Via Wikipedia>

NewsGuard is a rating system for news and information websites. It is accessible via browser extensions and mobile apps.

NewsGuard Technologies Inc., the company behind the tool, also provides services such as misinformation tracking and brand safety for advertisers, search engines, social media platforms, cybersecurity firms, and government agencies.

According to NewsGuard’s General Manager Matt Skibinski': "NewsGuard was created as an alternative to the black-box algorithms that decide which news content is promoted and which is not on big tech platforms--and as an alternative to any government censorship of content. We rate publishers using publicly disclosed, apolitical journalistic criteria, and we publish the evidence and rationale behind our assessment of each publisher we rate, along with any comments from the publisher, so that each reader can see and decide for themselves,”

News about NewsGuard --

NewsGuard Report: 74% of X's most viral misinformation posts are from "verified" users

Top Israel/Hamas misinformation spreaders use Elon Musk’s paid “verification”

"Verified" accounts on Elon Musk's X platform spread nearly three-quarters of the 250 most viral posts containing commonly shared misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war, according to a study released yesterday by NewsGuard, a company that has worked with the European Commission on misinformation initiatives.

After buying Twitter nearly a year ago, Musk overhauled the system for doling out blue checkmarks so that anyone who pays $8 a month can be "verified." Accounts verified as being notable and authentic under the pre-Musk system had their checkmarks removed.

(According to NewsGuard)
During the first week of the conflict (Oct. 7-Oct. 14), NewsGuard analyzed the 250 most-engaged posts (likes, reposts, replies, and bookmarks) that promoted one of 10 prominent false or unsubstantiated narratives relating to the war, derived from NewsGuard's Misinformation Fingerprints, its proprietary database of prominent false narratives. The results revealed that 186 out of these 250 posts—74 percent—were posted by accounts verified by X. ...

NewsGuard worked with the European Commission on the EU's Code of Practice on Disinformation, a voluntary system that Twitter joined before Musk bought the company. Musk pulled his platform out of the disinformation pact in May 2023. A Code of Practice study conducted for the EU by analytics firm TrustLab found that disinformation is more prevalent on X than on Facebook and other social networks.

NewsGuard, founded in 2018, is also providing data on misinformation to Europe's Joint Research Centre.

European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton warned Musk last week that X faces penalties under the new Digital Services Act if it doesn't take action to stop the spread of Israel/Hamas disinformation. The EC is investigating X's compliance with the new law and sent similar requests for information to Meta and TikTok.


E.U. Law Sets the Stage for a Clash Over Disinformation

A new European Union law that could force the world’s social media platforms to do more to fight it — or else face fines of up to 6 percent of a company’s revenue.

The law, the Digital Services Act, is intended to force social media giants to adopt new policies and practices to address accusations that they routinely host — and, through their algorithms, popularize — corrosive content. If the measure is successful, as officials and experts hope, its effects could extend far beyond Europe, changing company policies in the United States and elsewhere.

The law, years of painstaking bureaucracy in the making, reflects a growing alarm in European capitals that the unfettered flow of disinformation online — much of it fueled by Russia and other foreign adversaries — threatens to erode the democratic governance at the core of the European Union’s values.

Europe’s effort sharply contrasts with the fight against disinformation in the United States, which has become mired in political and legal debates over what steps, if any, the government may take in shaping what the platforms allow on their sites...

How to Fact Check.png

How to Identify and Deal with Disinformation, Manipulated Images, Video, DeepFakes & More

Generative adversarial network (GAN) trained photographs & More
Revealing those Bots & More

Algorithms, Big Data, AI/Artifical Intelligence and More... Looking into Future of Media

Data & Society studies the social implications of data-centric technologies, automation, and AI

Through empirical research and active engagement, our work illuminates the values and decisions that drive these systems — and shows why they must be grounded in equity and human dignity.

The News Media Needs to Aim for Facts, not "Performative Neutrality"

Democracy is at Risk
Key to Democratic Government: Facts, Knowledge, Education

Via Columbia Journalism Review / April 25

"Objectivity, democracy, and the American mosaic"

We find ourselves in a perilous moment. Democracy is under withering assault. Technological advances have empowered propagandists to profit through discontent and disinformation. A coordinated, fifty-year campaign waged by one of our major political parties to denigrate the media and call objective reality into question has reached its logical conclusion: we occupy a nation in which a sizable portion of the public cannot reliably tell fact from fiction. The rise of a powerful nativist movement has provided a test not only of American multiracial democracy, but also of the institutions sworn to protect it.

... the press had often failed this test by engaging in performative neutrality, paint-by-the-numbers balance, and thoughtless deference to government officials. Too many news organizations were as concerned with projecting impartiality as they were with actually achieving it, prioritizing the perception of their virtue in the minds of a hopelessly polarized audience over actual adherence to journalistic principle.

To this day, news organizations across the country often rely on euphemisms instead of clarity in clear cases of racism (“racially charged,” “racially tinged”) and acts of government violence (“officer-involved shooting”). Such decisions, I wrote, are journalistic failings, but also moral ones: when the weight of the evidence is clear, it is wrong to conceal the truth. Justified as “objectivity,” they are in fact its distortion...

Shoshana Zuboff: ‘Privacy has been extinguished. It is now a zombie'

January 30, 2023

Excerpts of Interview in the UK Financial Times

Shoshana Zuboff, a professor emerita at Harvard Business School, published The Age of Surveillance Capitalism in 2019 — a blast about how tech companies had made billions of dollars by sucking up private data. “We thought we were searching Google, but Google was searching us” ...

Today (in January 2023) she’s frustrated that efforts to restrain tech companies are so fragmented. “We have fantastic scholars, researchers, advocates who are focused on privacy, others who are focused on disinformation, others who are focused on the nexus with democracy,” she says, when we meet in London. This “Balkanisation” reduces the ability to pinpoint the “actual source of harm”: people’s data is treated as a costless resource, just as forests and other parts of nature were in centuries past. Zuboff cites data that, in the US, which has no federal privacy law, people have their location exposed 747 times a day. In the EU, which she says has the “best regulation”, it’s 376. “It’s better, but it’s not nearly better enough.”

“It is possible to have surveillance capitalism, and it is possible to have a democracy. It is not possible to have both,” she has written.

“Users have no say”

Individuals realistically cannot opt out by themselves. What we need is a right to sanctuary.

Last year Brussels introduced the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, its most comprehensive tech legislation to date. The UK parliament is currently debating an online safety bill. Zuboff wants these to be stepping stones.


(FT) Normally in newspaper interviews, the journalist asks questions, and the interviewee answers them. An interview with Zuboff is different. You ask questions and, more often than not, she responds with first principles — step-by-step explanations of how she believes that surveillance capitalism has taken hold this century.

Zuboff is particular about how her ideas are described, about how things are set up.... She mulls each detail.

This particular mind is, in tech terminology, a feature, not a bug. It enables Zuboff to take the long view.

In 1988, she published In the Age of the Smart Machine, which argued that computers would change companies in a way that previous technologies had not.

She later ran Odyssey, a Harvard Business School education programme to help successful people decide how to spend the later part of their lives. Her opus on surveillance capitalism was her own late-career flourish. It was published when she was 67, after a lightning strike had burnt down her family home in Maine and after the unexpected death of her husband and sometime co-author, the businessman Jim Maxmin. Zuboff argues that tech companies knew that the public would never support their data collection.

“Right from the start, they were understood as things that had to be secret, had to be camouflaged from users, lest they provoke resistance.” She quotes a recent Google executive as saying: “Won’t it creep people out to know how much we are paying attention?”

Today tech companies “are becoming much more reluctant to patent their discoveries, because they don’t want the public to know exactly what they’re doing. They’re no longer in most cases making their own data available to researchers.” So Zuboff sees the need for a regulatory fishing expedition. The EU’s tech laws will create “new cadres of people with new mixes of skills that are going to go inside the corporations. Their brief will be to lift the hood, to understand what’s really going on. One of the huge problems that we have is that most of the information that comes out of the companies is intentionally designed to be misleading. Gaslighting is a rhetorical art form that is genuinely practised by these companies.”

Zuboff rarely uses short answers or plain terminology.

Nonetheless, she is direct about content moderation — companies’ attempts to remove harmful content — which she describes as “quicksand... an utterly losing proposition, designed in fact to keep us occupied as long as possible so that they can keep getting away with what they’re really doing.”

She is more positive about age-appropriate design, where platforms are engineered to minimise harm to children and to collect less data from them.


The problem for privacy advocates is that their cause seems to offer too few advantages and too many drawbacks. For most European citizens, the biggest impact of privacy legislation is annoying cookies pop-ups...

(S)he admits regulation is hindered “because we can’t get inside [tech companies] to know what’s really going on. We’re regulating with blinders on... We don’t understand our adversary well enough.”

Zuboff insists that her attack is not against technology itself, but the economic logic that underpins it — “theft”. She holds out the possibility that we could use data and prediction for the common good. The counterargument is that there are basic trade-offs.

Tech services, whether for predicting text answers or the fastest driving routes, can only work by accumulating data and reducing our privacy.

(What does she think) of Musk’s ownership of Twitter... “We’ve got politicians, lawmakers, elected officials, as well as the entire citizenry, focused on one man and asking the question, ‘what will he do?’ Our political stability, our ability to know what’s true and what false, our health and to some degree our sanity, is challenged on a daily basis depending on which decisions Mr Musk decides to take. I regard this as fundamentally intolerable... These spaces cannot exist solely under corporate control... We’re two decades into the digital era but we have never, as democracies, taken stock of the meaning of these technologies.”


“In an information civilisation, our information spaces must exist under public law and be governed by democratic institutions... With luck and determination we will look back on the days of the information oligarchs like Musk and Zuckerberg as the first primitive missteps of a new civilisation.” She compares the west’s tech giants to China’s surveillance state. “This is a world in which privacy has been extinguished. Privacy is now a zombie category. None of us have privacy, even as we thought about it in the year 2000.” Her sense of dystopia is visceral....

The abolition of surveillance capitalism requires new laws that allow societies to decide “what becomes data in the first place, what we share, with whom, and to what purpose”.

Instead, tech marches onwards, particularly in the form of artificial intelligence. “ChatGPT has shaken us up. It has shocked people, forcing us to recognise how far AI has come, with virtually no law and democratic governance to shape or constrain its development and application.” AI’s development has relied on stealing human data, she argues.

She points hopefully to the EU’s proposed AI Act — “the first law to assert democratic governance over the application of AI”. But it’s hard not to feel that, even when Silicon Valley stumbles, it is still a step ahead. On the spot How do you control your own data?

I do everything that a person can do. I use encrypted services, I use a VPN. I rarely deploy apps on my phone unless absolutely necessary. Will tech companies sue the EU over new regulations? The standard MO is litigation. They want to tie individuals, agencies, groups up in court for as long as possible. They have the capital to be able to do that.


A New Challenger Rolls Out -- Artificial Intelligence's ChatGPT

ChatGPT Confronts 'Climate Denialism'

ChatGPT talks of fighting climate denialism.png


How Google’s Ad Business Funds Disinformation Around the World

Via ProPublica

October 2022

Using data from fact-checking newsrooms and researchers, @ProPublica scanned more than 13,000 active article pages from thousands of websites in more than half a dozen languages to determine whether they were making money with Google Ads.

The largest-ever analysis of Google’s ad practices on non-English-language websites reveals how the tech giant makes disinformation profitable.

Google is funneling revenue to some of the web’s most prolific purveyors of false information in Europe, Latin America and Africa, a ProPublica investigation has found.

The company has publicly committed to fighting disinformation around the world, but a ProPublica analysis, the first ever conducted at this scale, documented how Google’s sprawling automated digital ad operation placed ads from major brands on global websites that spread false claims on such topics as vaccines, COVID-19, climate change and elections.

Books on Disinformation: Its History, Techniques and Effects

Via New York Times / June 2022

NewsGuard targets Disinformation / Misinformation: Check out the NewsGuard online services

The Union of Concerned Scientists Reveals Facts About the 'Disinformation Playbook'

Countering Disinformation in Your Community (PDF)

Is Disinformation the Same as Misinformation?

What you can do about disinformation - UCUSA.png

What You Can Do to Stop Disinformation

How Business Interests Deceive, Misinform, and Buy Influence at the Expense of Public Health and Safety

Here are five of the most widely used “plays” and some of the many cases where they have been used to block regulations or minimize corporate liability, often with frightening effectiveness—and disastrous repercussions on public health and safety.

1) The Fake

Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research

2) The Blitz

Harass scientists who speak out with results or views inconvenient for industry

3) The Diversion

Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists

4) The Screen

Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies

5) The Fix

Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy

Misinfo/Disinfo, Powerful Political Tools

Hybrid Threats, Hybrid Warfare

In politics, in influencing and swaying public opinion, in engaging target audiences and motivating these groups and individuals with 'calls to action'

In international relations, in regional conflicts, in the cause of nationalism, conflicts and wartime

In the Internet Era, the Use of Misinformation and Disinformation becomes a formidable weapon


Dictionary Definition of Psyops (psychological operations) by Merriam-Webster

Military operations usually aimed at influencing the enemy's state of mind through noncombative means (such as distribution of leaflets)

First Known Use of psyops

First known use of psyops -- 1965, in the meaning defined above

GreenPolicy360's associate, Strategic Demands, adds an expanded definition in cyberwarfare application of psyops -- consider "cyber-psyops" as in the disinformation/misinformation viral use of online social media platforms to deliver messaging intended to deceive, distract, and sow distrust of fact-based news and online information

e.g., via The Guardian / March 20, 2022

"Fake news factories with wave of sanctions

"UK and US crack down on outlets and websites peddling ‘false and misleading’ reports thought to be backed by Russian intelligence"

Countries Nations world map s.jpg

Disinformation / Misinformation

The Bane of the Early Internet Age

Misinformation... Disinformation... Deeply Damaging Democracy



Fact-Checking, 'Facts Count'

Time for Facts and Science.jpg

Fact Checking @GreenPolicy360

80 Countries-237 Fact-Checking Sites (2020)

60 Countries-188 Fact-Checking Sites (2019)

37 Countries-96 Fact-Checking Sites (2016)

MediaWise for Teens

PolitiFact via Poynter

Poynter Int'l Fact Checking Network

Poynter Int'l List

Reporters Lab Fact-Checking News


WWW Origins-Foundation, established by World Wide Web founder Tim Berners-Lee, "devoted to all people having access to the Web" - WebFoundation.org

March 2017 Open Letter from Berners-Lee on Threats to the Web


Virality, social media networking.png


From the Aspen Institute:


From Micah Sifry:

April 2021

On Anti-disinformation work

In the last five years of a whole cottage industry (has been built) of research centers, academic studies, journalistic conferences and tech summits on disinformation.

In 2017, the CUNY School of Journalism (now called the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY) launched a $14 million News Integrity Initiative with primary funding from Facebook, with the goal of “helping people make informed judgments about the news they read and share online.” That same year, the Omidyar Network announced $100 million in funding for journalism outlets and to organizations combating hate speech and the spread of false information. The Annenberg Innovation Lab launched a “Truthiness Collaborative” to “advance research and engagement around the misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and other challenges to discourse fueled by our evolving media and technology ecosystem.

Now in just the last year, there’s a plethora of new organizations with names like The Forum on Information and Democracy, Digital Citizens Alliance, the Coalition for a Safer Web, and the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism.

More from Micah:

The disruptive moment is over: Micah Sifry on why the internet hasn’t transformed politics (yet) (2014)

To Change Voters’ Sympathies, It’s Time to Go Deep

Disinformation and Misinformation - via Wikipedia.jpg

Time for an International 'Internet Bill of Rights'

Internet Bill of Rights .png

Burning the Data.png

Fighting Back: Time for Facts and Science


GreenPolicy360 & Science

Climate Denial / Misinfo

Merchants of Doubt.jpg