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.

AdamRyan · Today 15:47

sinner how would you like to see the Internet policed?

I don't know much about it, but a highly partisan group shouldn't be allowed to lie about who's disseminating disinformation.

I can believe they provided more examples than just one. I mentioned in the OP I wasn't certain this was the entirety of their statement - just what was shared by Sayers.

Regardless of whatever other examples they may have provided they still put this in writing. They still cited that holding the 'wrong' opinion in a government consultation as a reason for blacklisting.

Do you think this is okay or are you suggesting Sayers made this quote up?

There is no evidence they are "highly partisan". In fact they say they are neutral and non-partisan.

That is always going to be debatable because what's acceptable in one culture isn't in another, but I see no reason to think they are "highly partisan". They are a lot more transparent than some groups.

I'm going to chip in here.

Not by commercial companies (my understanding is the GDI have subscribers), whether for profit or not, who disguise a business model as public service. GDI may believe that disinformation exists because powerful vested interests generate it for nefarious reasons of their own, and that the best way to counter it is to defund them by squeezing their business opportunities. However, that does not justify them calling out viewpoints without showing how those viewpoints are based in disinformation. They have not, in Stock's case, done this.

I stand by my rewriting of their mission statement.

Yes exactly. The GDI is another bunch of winebar authoritarians working on a censorship model. Their claim to be identifying "disinformation" is nonsense, they do no actual fact checking in any example that I've tried to check out. People are organisations are blacklisted for "wrongthink".

Many years ago the Economic League and its sibling organisations used to do the same thing. It was banned and use of its information was classified as discriminatory in terms of employment and information sharing. Its the same model of censorship but for some reason the winebar set who have appropriated much of the left seem to love and defend the GDI using all the arguments of the old Economic League.

Kathleen Stock pointing out sterilising kids is BAD.

Meanwhile Pornhub, nothing to see here. Crack on.

I mean, if they really wanted to clean up the internet, rape and trafficking under-age girls might be a good place to start I'd expect. Maybe that's just me?

AdamRyan · Today 15:57

There is no evidence they are "highly partisan". In fact they say they are neutral and non-partisan.

They can say that the moon is green cheese, for all I care. They have boasted that they describe factual information they don't like as "disinformation." It defies logic to accept their word that they are non-partisan.

Their admission that they describe 100% accurate GC stuff as "disinformation" i incontrovertible proof that they are partisan.

I don't think he made it up, I think he probably selectively quoted from a range and picked the most sympathetic example to stir up outrage. Most people who follow the debate will be aware of what happened to Stock and so will automatically think GDI are wrong.

It reminds me of Farage's outrage about being "debanked". Selective quoting to push a point about the right being discriminated against and censored, causing moral outrage about threats to free speech.

When investigated, the reality was something very different.

www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/farage-debanking-row-natwest-review-finds-no-evidence-of-widespread-political-discrimination-13030827

I'm quite suspicious of Sayers version of events. That's why I'd like to see the GDIs side - to get a more balanced view.

Well that's exactly the point about the Internet.
Pornhub generates money. Consumers pay for porn. Its £££. Therefore no incentive to police it in a deregulated, capitalist Internet.

Advertisers don't want the hit to their bottom line of their brand being associated with disinformation or certain political views. Therefore there is £££ in making sure they can avoid that. Hence GDI.

If advertisers knew Unherd was attracting a good target market for their products they'd still advertise there regardless of what GDI say. That index will be just one source of information they are using.

They are clear about their funding

https://www.disinformationindex.org/about

I wonder how free to access Pornhub makes money?

Would it be through ADVERTISING?

He might have selected the most sympathetic example. They still said it and clearly believed it was an acceptable reason.

No need to stir up outrage because some things are outrageous and this is one of them.

I'd be somewhat annoyed if they'd just said Stock was 'anti trans' and left it at that. I have a bigger problem with them bringing a government consultation into it which Stock had every right to participate in as a citizen of this country and to hold whatever view she wished on it.

Yes and no. Some advertising and you can bet that's because those advertisers know it's going to find their target market of men who want a lot. (E.g. cam sites, paid for porn, only fans).
And some funnelling to paid content and subscriptions.

The advertisers don't care because they want the £££ from paid abuse of women. And seemingly there is nothing governments can do because "free speech", "can't police the internet".

To be honest I'd much rather see a focus on shutting that down than shutting down GDI. But it's all about priorities I guess.

There is no commentary on this apart from him and various right wing sources amplifying his message.

As I say, Stock isn't the person affected here. Sayers/Unherd is. And I think its a non-story - sorry.

It is very interesting about the Internet and how it should be policed though.

I took a little wander around the GDI website and tripped over this.

Why is anti-LGBTQ+ disinformation being funded by advertising?

www.disinformationindex.org/disinfo-ads/2022-08-02-why-is-anti-lgbtq-disinformation-being-funded-by-advertising/

It throws some light on GDI's use of adversarial narrative conflict in general and in the LGBTQ+ arena in particular. I found the examples of adversarial narrative conflict themes of particular interest:

*Educating children about gender identity is child abuse and/or sexual grooming.

Books in schools that depict sexual content, pornography or pedophilia are somehow representative of LGBTQ+ persons.

Gender nonconformity is against nature and similar to “satanic ritual abuse.”

"Transgenderism" is a "concept" invented and imposed on children by the "Radical Left” intended to destroy the social fabric of society.

Increasing numbers of young people who identify as transgender is proof that identifying as such is a social choice rather than a naturally occurring state.*

I would agree that all these points are disinformation if presented as statements of fact but how close to each of these themes do you need to be to be guilty of adversarial narrative conflict? How about:

Teaching gender identity as uncontested fact should be banned in schools.

There is no place in schools for books that depict sexual content, pornography or pedophilia.

Social transition is not a neutral act.

Transgenderism is a recent concept without any commonly agreed meaning.

The recent sudden increase in children who identify as transgender suggests that this is not a naturally occurring state and needs proper investigation.

Have you watched all the videos? He does address this.

Brands go through ad agencies who in turn use companies like GDI. Most will have no idea what reasons a company like the GDI have for their blacklist. Most will accept the assurance that their brand is being kept 'safe' and not ask any more questions than that. Sometimes it will work as intended. No brand wants to end up on an actual neo nazi website (to cite an extreme example).

Really though it's a question of who watches the watchers because the GDI and others like them are operating in a space where they can attempt to politically curate the internet in favour only of things they or their funders like.

You might like that idea now because their politics mostly chime with yours but every tool built is a weapon that can be used against you too. There's no such thing as the right side of history and anyone can suddenly find themselves on the wrong side because of their principles and beliefs.

To be honest I'd much rather see a focus on shutting that down than shutting down GDI. But it's all about priorities I guess.

UnHerd would probably let you write an article about that. You could ask them.

How about the disinformation of:

'that girl is not consenting to that sex'
'that girl is not over 18'
'that man is not a lesbian'?

No, let's all focus on the disinformation of...whatever it is that they think Kathleen Stock said that is probably 100% factually true.

Totally rational behaviour.

It's nothing to do with "their politics mostly chiming with mine". It's to do with this is a service that someone will provide on a deregulated, capital Internet. I don't understand what people who are against GDI expect to happen.

This is one of those irregular thingummies again.

My boot is transparently on your neck.

No-one else clearly has a boot on your neck, but I suggest that maybe they do, and they're not transparent about it. Which is quite sinister.

Therefore they're actually worse than my boot on your neck, because at least I'm doing it publicly. You should be grateful for how clearly I'm using my power.

Unlike those shady people over there - who knows what they're up to? I don't trust them. I trust my boot. (Which was properly paid for, so it's all above board).

Who would pay for that Alison and how do you expect it to impact pornhubs business model?

No. It isn't.
It's simple free market. Advertisers want a service - how to prevent their brands being associated with disinformation. GDI provide the service.
Other providers could and probably do exist.

Sayers is whining because he doesn't like it. Tough. It's a free market, he needs another revenue stream.

As a minimum I expect government agencies not to fund them unless they can evidence a non partisan approach to actual disinformation and by that I mean things that are not true rather than this adversarial narrative nonsense.

Government pay them for services too. Government pay lots of suppliers, many I don't like (the owners of Bibby Stockholm for example. Frank Hester. Michelle Mone). That's life.

You should download the report and have a look. It has examples of the content it's talking about and how it conflicts with the host organisations policy on adverts. It's not them putting a particular value judgement on it.