Worth watching - Unherd investigation - Inside the 'disinformation' industry. Kathleen Stock specifically mentioned.

I think my problem really is I've only seen Sayers' version of what's happened and as he's CEO of Unherd he's clearly going to want to take a particular line on this.

I agree re: Stock, she writes in a number of other places, she's had books published and can continue to do this regardless of GDI, so she isn't really being "censored".

Would be interested to read more about GDIs "side" which is why I linked the press gazette article upthread.

I have no interest in defending unherd. I read Kathleen Stock because I like her stuff, not because she works for unherd. I judge she is not "low quality content". I enjoy the adversariality of her position. My beef is with GDI equating disinformation with low quality content and adversarial positions. If GDI were open and honest and said "If you sign up with us, we'll tell you which sites are not in accord with views you want to be associated with so you can avoid advertising there" I would have no problem with it. But the noble goal of "countering disinformation" is not this.

OP quotes GDI's words in their post (GDI cited in OP, 2024):

Our team re-reviewed the domain, the rating will not change as it continues to have anti LGBTQI+ narratives... The site authors have also been called out for being anti -trans. Kathleen Stock is acknowledged as a "prominent gender- critical" feminist. She has opposed transgender self identification in regards to proposed reforms in the 2004 UK Gender Recognition Act

This is partisan disembowelling, not countering disinformation. GDI are clearly conflating fact and narrative, and I think they are wrong to do so.

Edited to correct wroten speling and bad gramer

Paradoxically it could be that Unherd has been set up precisely to amplify disinformation because the owner has ££ and an Ideological agenda to push.

I think the point I was making was GDI say they do assess for disinformation/"low quality content".

PP Implies Unherd is "advancing a truth" that nowhere else is. I disagree. I think GDI are far more likely to be expert in this than I am, but there is enough about Unherd for me to not be particularly worried that GDI are advancing some kind of left wing plot, as opposed to providing a needed service to their customers.

For me the salient point is the idea that "adversarial narrative" = "disinformation". I disagree, for the simple reason that any disagreeing position can be seen as an "adversarial narrative". Doing this is part of debate. "Disinformation" should only be called where facts have been deliberately falsified or confected, irrespective of position. If they can not be substantiated when questioned, this may simply be "incompetence" or "error", and a correction should be provided.

You can't look at headlines alone - you actually have to read the articles.

The point that I am making is that Unherd is more able to withstand GDI's misrepresentation than other platforms precisely because of PM's financial backing.

I'm sure Paul Marshall has the ££ to sue them if he thinks they are defamatory. Would be interesting to see how that works because "the truth" is a defence against defamation.

I think it might do his reputation more harm than good to do that. I'd assume GDI have a strong legal department as part of their business model.

It is the side effect of am unregulated Internet.

They have spotted a gap in the market and are providing a necessary service to advertisers for ££. It is the outcome of unregulated capitalism imo.

I just read the Moderna article. It was conspiracy theory, big pharma related ridiculousness. Also pro Russell Brand which is pretty funny in hindsight.

Not a good example of how Unherd is "factual" in my opinion 😂

🤣
I'm pretty open about what I think. Spreading conspiracy theories undermines democracy. Paul Marshall's media outlets contain a lot of content I'd count as conspiracy related/disinformation. Therefore I'm not surprised he's ended up on the GDI radar.

If you want to read it knock yourself out. I'm saying I don't think its reliable. And in this case I'm interested in the mechanics of how advertisers are protecting their brand reputation on the Internet, where advertising is mainly automated and there are no rules.

AdamRyan · Today 10:11

One could argue that traditional media "self censors" to avoid sanctions from Ofcom.

One could also argue that publishing factually correct articles, within the bounds of legal free speech, is unlikely to attract the attention of OFCOM.

One could also argue that GDI labelling Unherd articles as disinformation, when they are patently not, is abusive and quite possibly defamatory. Why do they get to decide that accurate and legally protected speech is defamatory, because they don't like the message, thus depriving news sites of revenue?

Who the Hell do they think they are to ruin a business, for no good reason?

Is this some kind of "lefty" implication? The political agenda of the Guardian is not relevant to the point I'm making. If you don't like it, don't read it. I often link Guardian articles as it's not pay walled.

And still not comment, Adam, that The Guardian had a poorer rating for accuracy than Unherd?

As someone who reads both, I'm not at all surprised, but I don't see you telling us the GUardian is just a vector for disinformation.

And just to note, because this is important:

Having a cough is "a sign" of TB. But to say someone has TB, they need to have the TB bactirium in your body. Lots of people cough without it being caused by TB.

Having titles even that are actually a emotive, rather than just in your imagination, still doesn't mean something is disinformation. You need to engage the content to see.

These are not particularly more emotive than headlines in other media Adam. You are seriously grasping at straws here and making yourself look silly.

Given the way you think lining any media source, even remotely, to someone you consider a bad actor makes it suspect, it is bizarre that you can't see why an organization like this trying to divert funding away from political ideas is dislikes is a problem.

OFCOM is not a private company with a private political agenda.

ANd FWIW< the article about Moderna is about precisely what it says it is about - it is about how the company is monitoring online discussions and media content about their vaccines, and how and why they are labeling some of it disinformation, whether that is legitimate or self-interested, and their lobbying in terms of policy questions on vaccination and regulation of pharmaceuticals.

I really have to wonder why you are so keen to make sure that kind of discussion isn't seen by the public, because it seems like a consistent theme from you.

Very emotive titles and general content are a sign of disinformation.

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronavirus-response/fighting-disinformation/identifying-conspiracy-theories_en

The titles I shared relate to well known conspiracy theories. E.g. during covid there was a conspiracy theory that the vaccines were injecting nanobots into people to enable government surveillance. The title of the article "Moderna is spying on you" is very clearly designed to attract people who believe that conspiracy theory.

One could argue that traditional media "self censors" to avoid sanctions from Ofcom.

Well this is the downside of the Internet isn't it.
Advertising is automated, advertisers are not going to want their brand associated with certain websites or content. Identifying all the websites so they can avoid them is a big job that all the companies will need doing so I'm not surprised it's been outsourced.

You might not like it but noone controls the Internet so there is nothing you can do about it really.

Bad Media doing the Irregular Verb thing! Is it time for this GIF?

*All the Internet advertising is automated. It isn't "censoring" for an organisation to advise that companies may not want to be associated with sites pushing disinformation.

As well as "free speech" the openness of the Internet allows advertisers to decide where they want to spend their money. That's good I think.*

But this is not the main aim of the GDI. The GDI's mission statement is "defunding disinformation" i.e. cutting off revenue streams (in this case advertising) from online sources they don't like.

Given that the majority of news is ad funded this is a form of (albeit less overt) censorship. The only reason Unherd is relatively unaffected is because it's not primarily ad funded. If the GDI put the Guardian on its "exclusion list" I imagine it wouldn't survive the week.

Even then you might be able to argue they are doing a useful service until you realise they are using the word "disinformation" to apply to anything and anyone they deem "harmful". Including, apparently, information that is "factual but harmful". That's a massive overreach and will lead to online news sources effectively self-censoring in order to not lose their ad revenue.

Jesus, you cam't know that articles are "spreading disinformation" just because of titles like that.

"Absolute Victory Over Russia Is Impossible" seems to you to be some sort of conspiracy theory topic? It's an opinion, obviously, but not a bizarre one. Unherd has a lot of differernt writers, and they certainly don't all take the same approach to issues. Their mandate was to publish writers not getting much time in the mainstream media, writing on hot topics, so they are of course going to skew to controversies.

And FWIW, Media Bias/Fact Check rates it center-right, Mostly factual. You might compare that to The Guardian, which is rated center-left, mixed (one step down from mostly factual.) All Sides rated Unherd as Center, rather than center right, in the most recent year.

Sorry, I don't understand? You can still subscribe to Unherd if you want

All the Internet advertising is automated. It isn't "censoring" for an organisation to advise that companies may not want to be associated with sites pushing disinformation.

As well as "free speech" the openness of the Internet allows advertisers to decide where they want to spend their money. That's good I think.

@AdamRyan Thanks for letting me know that Unherd is funded by Paul Marshall. Doesn't this make the influence of GDI worse though? Unherd can withstand the loss of advertising revenue because of PM. Other platforms that are advancing the truth may not be so fortunate and it may be a truth that you want to hear.