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

[OvaHere]

Freddie Sayers recently attended a government special committee about News where he raised problems Unherd have had with ad revenue and ad agencies.

It turns out Unherd have been placed on an exclusion list by a British company called the Global Disinformation Index. This company is funded in part by money from various global government departments including our FCDO.

After finding this out Unherd appealed and asked the GDI for an explanation. After some weeks they got a response that rejected the appeal and were told it was because they hosted gender critical content and specifically named Kathleen Stock and her objections to the reform of the GRA 2004.

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.

It's not clear if this is the entirety of the GDI response to Unherd however they are clear that they consider Professor Stock's views 'disinformation'. If you watch the video you'll discover the GDI have conveniently broadened the definition of disinformation beyond just that which is false or factually incorrect.

Unsurprisingly they don't apply this to discourse their founders like and agree with.

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.

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.

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?

🤣
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.

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 😂

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

I think that is what they do. From the Press Gazette article:

Eventually, advertising agency Teads revealed that Unherd was being flagged as disinformation by advertising software company Oracle which uses data from GDI.

GDI said in a statement: “GDI is a non-profit that brings transparency to digital advertising. We provide risk assessments of online news to the advertising industry, which uses this data to make more informed choices over the advertising they buy online. Fully informed transactions between buyers and sellers are a key tenet of a free market.”

@AdamRyan
I think that is what they do.

So it's "Oracle" which has added the judgment of "disinformation"? GDI don't claim to be doing this? That would seem to be the Press Gazette's view. But GDI's homepage gives a mission statement:

GDI provides independent, neutral and transparent data and intelligence to advise policymakers and business leaders about how to combat disinformation and its creators.

The snippet quoted by OP is most decidedly not this. It is criticising Unherd for their viewpoint, not the factual accuracy of their writing.

Do you have an explanation as to why they specifically singled out Stock's opposition to the GRA reform?

Out of all the things they could have taken issue with apparently having opinions on an open to all citizens government consultation was a step too far for the GDI.

It suggests that the GDI believe there was only the 'right' sort of opinion to hold about a government consultation and having the wrong one according to them means you should be blacklisted.

This sort of behaviour is just suggestive of them being another arm of activism and lobbying dressed up as something pretending to be for the greater good.

I am not sure if they did or if that's just what Sayers chose to take from a bigger set of examples. That's why I'd like to hear more about their side.

The fact is though that the Internet is not policed and can be manipulated for all sorts of agendas. GDI are very transparent about who they are and what they do. There will be others that are not so transparent.

Yes. I think GDI "risk assess" websites for the threat they contain disinformation to make an index. Advertising authorities then use that index as one factor in choosing where to place their adverts.

So in this case Oracle used the data to route adverts.

I have no idea about the veracity of what Sayers is alleging. Like you say, it's a "snippet". I am interested in how you propose it's dealt with. The Internet is effectively unregulated so if the advertisers want to pay for this service, that's up to them. And if the websites want to use advertising as their revenue stream, they have to produce content that keeps the advertisers (who are the customers) happy. The readers/"freedom of speech" are kind of irrelevant.

Like I say, this is an outcome of unregulated capitalism.

GDI's statement according to the Press Gazette says:

GDI said in a statement: “GDI is a non-profit that brings transparency to digital advertising. We provide risk assessments of online news to the advertising industry, which uses this data to make more informed choices over the advertising they buy online. Fully informed transactions between buyers and sellers are a key tenet of a free market.”

This is not the same as this:

GDI provides independent, neutral and transparent data and intelligence to advise policymakers and business leaders about how to combat disinformation and its creators

It looks like it needs to reword its mission statement. Perhaps:

GDI provides independent and transparent data and intelligence to advise policymakers and business leaders about how to avoid pile-ons.

Maybe people need to look at their whole website. This is their mission page:

https://www.disinformationindex.org/mission

Defunding Disinformation
Malicious actors peddle disinformation for myriad reasons. They may be highly organised nation states motivated by geopolitical aims, private marketing companies acting on behalf of political or commercial organisations, or ad hoc communities of like-minded individuals motivated by a shared ideology. But GDI’s founding thesis is that the majority of disinformation on the web is motivated by financial gain, the result of the dominant attention-driven business models that drive today’s internet.
This is where GDI focuses its efforts. To reduce disinformation, we need to remove the financial incentive to create it. Brands unwittingly provide an estimated quarter of a billion dollars annually to disinformation websites through online advertisements placed on them. GDI uses both expert human review and artificial intelligence to assess disinformation risk across the open web. We then provide these risk ratings to brands and advertising technology partners, providing them with a trusted and neutral source of data with which to direct their advertising spend.

AdamRyan · Today 12:27

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.

But saying that something is factually correct, but because they don't like it, they've called it disinformation wouldn't pass the truth test, as it's an obvious lie.

Maybe people need to look at their whole website. This is their mission page:

Yes, and the DDR was genuinely the German Democratic Republic.

This is interesting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/03/19/house-republicans-disinformation-global-engagement-center/

Maybe people need to look at their whole website. This is their mission page:

I didn't read their whole website. True. However, that changes nothing. They're still acting against the viewpoint, and not making a clear distinction between viewpoint and disinformation.

Edit: My typing is rubbish.

sinner how would you like to see the Internet policed? I cannot see how it works unless there is a service like this, because advertisers are always going to want to target advertising. Towards places where it is most likely to hit a target audience and away from places where there is a brand association risk.

How do you think that service could be provided better, given the nature of the Internet?

(I'm asking because you usually have interesting perspectives on this)