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

I don't doubt this Paul Marshall is a highly unsavoury character but surely the problem is individual, extremely wealthy men having such power over the news. I don't see how censoring online discourse is going to fix that problem.

Sure, you can see it like that.
I think Paul Marshall has an agenda though.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/media/65415/the-marshall-plan-paul-marshall-gb-news

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/media/65007/paul-marshalls-hateful-likes-make-him-unfit-to-be-a-media-mogul

"Emotive titles" are how you attract clicks though. Part of me wishes that the current media world wasn't so dependant on clickbait, grabbing peoples attentions as fast as possible but it is. There are 1000s of stories competing for peoples attention at once and peoples attention span is growing ever shorter. So it isn't fair to say that one half can have all the emotion and doom mongering they like whilst the other has to have long, dry academic titles.

Very emotive titles on topics that attract conspiracy theorists.

Yes they attract conspiracy theorists but that's because these are some of the most important and contentious topics of our time. There is no "right answer" on how we deal with Russia or climate change or pandemics. There has to be free flowing debate and we have to allow space for uncomfortable opinions and truths. Censoring an outlet like Unherd will only fan the flames of conspiracy theorists who will move to other, far less credible and reputable sources.

If you scroll down the Guardian or the New York Times websites you'll see headlines that are just as emotive, just coming from a different viewpoint. If you're going to argue against click baity headlines then you have to apply the same rule to everyone.

To get that, I googled "unherd global disinformation" and clicked on news. The list of unherd articles it served me would chime with disinformation. Articles like "Absolute victory over Russia isn't possible"; "A heatwave isn't the end of the world"; "The battle to control America's minds: Washington is waging an information war"; "The censorship industrial complex's new target: Gamers"; "Who controls the Covid 19 narrative?"; "Moderna is spying on you"; "The new world war on free speech"; "Irelands Elites are rewriting the past" etc etc etc

Very emotive titles on topics that attract conspiracy theorists.

Hadn't seen this, really interesting. Here's an article in the press gazette:
https://pressgazette.co.uk/marketing/anti-trans-narratives-unherd-advertising-blacklist-global-disinformation-index/

Under its own rules GDI targets “highly adversarial” content about at-risk groups, science and democracy which it believes could cause harm. Such information must, it says, “have the intent to mislead”.

GDI meanwhile sees its role as countering the spread of low-quality content online, which proliferates because of an online ecosystem that targets advertising against readers, whatever website they land on, via programmatic systems.

It looks like GDI is trying to take on an OFCOM like role on the Internet.

Unherd is another of Paul Marshall's outlets (as is GBNews) so I'm not surprised at all there are concerns about whether it's promoting disinformation.

The article authors could always use another more reputable outlet to publish their content.

This could also be why sites like Spiked can’t support themselves with advertising - Brendan O'Neill has frequently stated that advertisers and advertising agencies won’t work with Spiked and something like GDI putting Spiked on a widely distributed disinformation list sounds very possible if GDI has seen fit to put sites like Unherd on such a list.

I do find that name a little on the nose 😁

Exactly my point there @SinnerBoy

I wonder if they've checked themselves for disinformation? After all, labelling facts as "disinformation" is certainly an act of propagating disinformation.

I find it "disinformation" that they use a term which implies fake news or conspiracy theory, but actually they include accurate information that doesn't suit their political agenda.

I can't find the post but a MNer made some very similar arguments about young women enforcing "no offence" and disregarding the consequences of those harmed (I've paraphrased).

But university environments, as is patently evident to all but the most insulated and echo chamber-bound, are not committing enough to this principle. Nor are other places where freedom to offend must take precedence over subjective feelings, such the arts and the press. Take the pompously named Global Disinformation Index (GDI), which “[advises] policymakers and business leaders about how to combat disinformation”. The GDI’s definition of what constitutes “disinformation” is extremely dubious. The head of the organisation, Claire Metford has stated:
A lot of disinformation is not just whether something is true or false — it escapes from the limits of fact-checking. Something can be factually accurate but still extremely harmful…

The writer introduced Stephen Daisley's phrase to me, "coercive progressivism" and I recognise the phenomenon.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rise-of-coercive-progressivism/

I've only had time to give this a quick look but the GDI gets a mention so i thought i'd leave it here

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-awkward-truth-about-sex-and-free-speech/

Agreed - it's so easy to dismiss this stuff as conspiracy theory but if you listen to her she is showing her agenda loud and clear. Truth is unimportant if it's seen as mean or harmful.

Unfortunately, we still have too much trust in institutions and public organisation - assuming they are doing their stated jobs to the best of their ability. But so many of these institutions/ organisations have been infiltrated by people who care more about activism than the jobs they are paid to do.

I just watched the first video expecting it to be a bit hyperbolic but then I heard the woman who runs the GDI describing disinformation as including information that is "factual but harmful". I can't believe people just sat and listened to her say that! It doesn't get more Orwellian.

Also incredible that Kathleen Stock, a lesbian philosopher and one of the most considered and reasonable voices out there, has been flagged as spreading LGBT disinformation. Insanity.

Flipping heck.

When the truth is 'misinformation' we know we have a problem.

So Kathleen Stock supported the legal status quo, and they reckon that’s extremism?

I find the absolute certainty that these companies have that they are the right moral arbiter totally chilling. Where is their self doubt?

'Promoting an adversarial narrative' is genuinely frightening

The should be made to list every item of 'disinformation' they believe Kathleen Stock has put on UnHerd and to provide factual corrections in each case. That will be enlightening.

They've got a get out for that, they have expanded the definition of "disinformation" to include "promoting an adversarial narrative" so the fact that these things are true are largely irrelevant to them.

Every accusation is a confession as they say.

It's a very clear case of "Who watches the watchmen?"

There are no appeals. How anti-democratic can a structure be? Where is the governance?

So many of these abuses and scandals have failures of governance and lack of accountability at their heart.