July 28, 2023 - 11:30am
Yesterday saw the start of the first ever Cambridge Disinformation Summit. The two-day event, organised by Cambridge don Alan Jagolinzer, is billed as an opportunity to bring together thinkers who share “concerns about the global existential risks of disinformation”. Attending the conference is an array of senior representatives from the World Health Organization, McKinsey, DeepMind and the Rand Corporation, with a keynote address from Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.
Conference talking points reflect the ever-diversifying concerns of disinformation. Attendees can hear about everything from the impact of “racialisation and propaganda” on the life of a refugee to overcoming a religious cult. Still, there appears to be a clear aim offered by its organiser. Professor Jagolinzer, whose background is in finance, has laid out his vision in an article introducing the event, asking why the same “infrastructure to mitigate societal harm” from manipulating information in a financial reporting setting can’t be applied to social media and journalism, where the broader social damage is “significantly greater”.
Is Jagolinzer being wilfully naive? Infrastructure to tackle “disinformation” does, of course, already exist. Twitter has just acquiesced to the EU’s “tough” disinformation laws having previously pulled out of an agreement. In the UK, the Government has already boasted that the Online Safety Bill beefs up protection against hostile state disinformation while it routinely rejects FOI requests to its Whitehall counter-disinformation units.
Naturally, Jagolinzer is talking about a very particular definition of disinformation, one that has emerged thanks to the revolution of the digital age. Misinformation, under that ubiquitous definition of “information intended to mislead”, saw a glut of bad fact-checking and the micro-management of opinion on social media (perpetrated by some of the conference attendees) that achieved little other than further alienating those already mistrustful of Government policy. The only thing we learnt about the modern definition of disinformation during the pandemic was that no one really knew what it meant.
Of course, inaccurate or misleading information proliferated by all parties is a persistent source of concern. The far more difficult question for attendees at the conference, however, is how to restore trust in the institutions they represent. Harvard’s Kennedy School has already indicated that this should be a priority, casting doubt on the veracity of anti-dis/misinformation efforts by governments and NGOs in its recent research paper, recommending instead that they focus on the far more productive task of “restoring trust in reliable sources of news”.
Will this concern hold sway at the conference? One notable speaker, Professor Sander van der Linden, author of Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects our Minds and How to Build Immunity, has become influential among the disinformation doomers. Van der Linden sees misinformation as a grave threat to society, akin to a disease to be inoculated against; he aims to expose would-be victims to its “DNA” so that they understand how they might be manipulated. Other attendees seem equally keen to use the metaphor, with one calling for a “public health level solution”.
This prognosis and cure has unsurprisingly come in for criticism. Writing in the Boston Review, Daniel Williams described van der Linden’s methodology as “plagued by serious weaknesses”, drawing on an array of research that suggests we might not be as gullible to the threat as we seem. The very idea of an “infodemic” may itself be fake news, given that the most avid consumers of overt misinformation constitute a small minority of the population, consisting of “avid conspiracy theorists, hyper-partisans and extremists”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“The two-day event, organised by Cambridge don Alan Jagolinzer, is billed as an opportunity to bring together thinkers who share “concerns about the global existential risks of disinformation”. Attending the conference is an array of senior representatives from the World Health Organization, McKinsey, DeepMind and the Rand Corporation, ”
Sounds more like a smoke screen for those engaged in disinformation
Or perhaps a conference sharing ideas on how to misinform more effectively.
The politics (or marketing) of doing something to give the appearance of progress when, in effect, ANY of these people, groups, cohorts, orgs, etc. can do a sh**load more individually than they are doing now collectively. But hey…billionaires, elites and influencers need time off from their busy schedules of fake philanthropy, ruining the climate and muddying up the socio-economic waters for a little elbow-rubbing with their fellow enablers, no?
Or perhaps a conference sharing ideas on how to misinform more effectively.
The politics (or marketing) of doing something to give the appearance of progress when, in effect, ANY of these people, groups, cohorts, orgs, etc. can do a sh**load more individually than they are doing now collectively. But hey…billionaires, elites and influencers need time off from their busy schedules of fake philanthropy, ruining the climate and muddying up the socio-economic waters for a little elbow-rubbing with their fellow enablers, no?
“The two-day event, organised by Cambridge don Alan Jagolinzer, is billed as an opportunity to bring together thinkers who share “concerns about the global existential risks of disinformation”. Attending the conference is an array of senior representatives from the World Health Organization, McKinsey, DeepMind and the Rand Corporation, ”
Sounds more like a smoke screen for those engaged in disinformation
The WHO attending a conference on disinformation is like Stalin attending a conference on famine relief.
The WHO attending a conference on disinformation is like Stalin attending a conference on famine relief.
The biggest conspiracy theory in modern times has to be the assertion that the elected president of the United States, Donald Trump, was acting as an agent of Russia. For three years Democrat politicians and their propaganda arm, the MSM, pushed this absurd idea. But ask a Leftist what was the biggest conspiacy theory and I doubt any of them would even recognise it as being one, despite proving to be baseless accusation.engineered by the wholly corrupt Democratic Party in collusion with the FBI and CIA.
Each day brings new revelations about how matters previously designated as false or misinformation, have subsequently proven to be entirely true. And these are not small matters. The Hunter Biden laptop that had clear evidence of serious political corrupton by Joe Biden being knowingly designated as Russian misinformation by the FBI probably turned the result of the US presidential election The denouncements of suggestions that the Covid vacines did not prevent transmission almost certainly resulted in overconfidence that got people killed. The diversion of attention away from the culpability of China by dismissal of the lab leak theory prevented China from being pressured to release what it already knew about the virus that escaped from its lab.
By far the vast majoity of and most serious disinformation comes from the Left. Part of it is outright lies, but a greater part of it is lies by ommission of important relevant information and the suppression of the truth by designating it misinformation. But those on the Left don’t care. Their belief that they are on the good side allows them to dismiss proven falsehoods as good intentions gone wrong.
Any person that thinks that giving government and politicians control over information the public hear and the ability to designate what is true and what is false, in the belief that it improves our national security, is a fool. It is an open invitation to tyrany from within.
That’s what I don’t get. Why aren’t more people concerned about the govt becoming the arbiter of truth? I would rather wade through 10 tonnes of horse manure than have the govt tell me what’s true and false..
Alas not really the “Left” – anyone (including my wife!) who follows mainstream media
That’s what I don’t get. Why aren’t more people concerned about the govt becoming the arbiter of truth? I would rather wade through 10 tonnes of horse manure than have the govt tell me what’s true and false..
Alas not really the “Left” – anyone (including my wife!) who follows mainstream media
The biggest conspiracy theory in modern times has to be the assertion that the elected president of the United States, Donald Trump, was acting as an agent of Russia. For three years Democrat politicians and their propaganda arm, the MSM, pushed this absurd idea. But ask a Leftist what was the biggest conspiacy theory and I doubt any of them would even recognise it as being one, despite proving to be baseless accusation.engineered by the wholly corrupt Democratic Party in collusion with the FBI and CIA.
Each day brings new revelations about how matters previously designated as false or misinformation, have subsequently proven to be entirely true. And these are not small matters. The Hunter Biden laptop that had clear evidence of serious political corrupton by Joe Biden being knowingly designated as Russian misinformation by the FBI probably turned the result of the US presidential election The denouncements of suggestions that the Covid vacines did not prevent transmission almost certainly resulted in overconfidence that got people killed. The diversion of attention away from the culpability of China by dismissal of the lab leak theory prevented China from being pressured to release what it already knew about the virus that escaped from its lab.
By far the vast majoity of and most serious disinformation comes from the Left. Part of it is outright lies, but a greater part of it is lies by ommission of important relevant information and the suppression of the truth by designating it misinformation. But those on the Left don’t care. Their belief that they are on the good side allows them to dismiss proven falsehoods as good intentions gone wrong.
Any person that thinks that giving government and politicians control over information the public hear and the ability to designate what is true and what is false, in the belief that it improves our national security, is a fool. It is an open invitation to tyrany from within.
LYING OUTLAWED
Politicians, Actors Hardest Hit
Some Financial Analysts would like to have a word with you. 🙂
“I’m not lying! I’m just guessing!”
“I’m not lying! I’m just guessing!”
Some Financial Analysts would like to have a word with you. 🙂
LYING OUTLAWED
Politicians, Actors Hardest Hit
The most common form of ‘misinformation’ is lack of it. That is to say…Lies by Omission…and these, by definition, are the hardest to see.
The most common form of ‘misinformation’ is lack of it. That is to say…Lies by Omission…and these, by definition, are the hardest to see.
“… an array of research that suggests we might not be as gullible to the threat as we seem”. If there’s a choice to be made between trusting the small, vociferous minority who are in thrall to these notions of ‘misinformation’ and the vast cohort of ordinary, practical people, I know who I’ll go with.
“… an array of research that suggests we might not be as gullible to the threat as we seem”. If there’s a choice to be made between trusting the small, vociferous minority who are in thrall to these notions of ‘misinformation’ and the vast cohort of ordinary, practical people, I know who I’ll go with.
The word I bet that the world everyone at that conference is ignoring is ‘censorship’. No one wants to argue for that, but it sounds as though that is what most of the conference-goers want.
Censorship and free speech do not mix. Censorship and democracy do not mix. That’s why, up ’till now, we have limited any kind of censorship to the laws of slander and libel. We dare not go any further.
The word I bet that the world everyone at that conference is ignoring is ‘censorship’. No one wants to argue for that, but it sounds as though that is what most of the conference-goers want.
Censorship and free speech do not mix. Censorship and democracy do not mix. That’s why, up ’till now, we have limited any kind of censorship to the laws of slander and libel. We dare not go any further.
“Covid probably leaked from a lab”. MISINFORMATION’ until it wasn’t. “Covid vaccines don’t stop you from getting covid;” MISINFORMATION until it wasn’t. And mind you, these are not two tiny inconsequential examples. Both of these had huge real life effects on real people.
“Covid probably leaked from a lab”. MISINFORMATION’ until it wasn’t. “Covid vaccines don’t stop you from getting covid;” MISINFORMATION until it wasn’t. And mind you, these are not two tiny inconsequential examples. Both of these had huge real life effects on real people.
I assume they have a top 10 list. Would love see what’s on it.
I assume they have a top 10 list. Would love see what’s on it.
It’s to be expected that academics would sooner or later start to call for speech suppression – the Internet is undermining their monopoly on lying.
It’s to be expected that academics would sooner or later start to call for speech suppression – the Internet is undermining their monopoly on lying.
One man’s misinformation is another man’s free speech – and vice versa.
That’s true. Mostly.
The thing is, an untruth is an untruth. It does not magically become true when seen from someone else’s standpoint.
Where I think we might agree is that untruths are best countered by truths, not by censorship.
And/ or they are covered under the laws of liable and slander if they pertain to an individual
Valid point – but…
Most people do not spend their time arguing points and countering untruths in a genteel debating society forum. Accepted ‘truth’ is more likely to be established by persuasion, influence and an appeal to an existing sympathetic worldview. Consider how readily we in the West have been persuaded to subject our history to moral reevaluation while other peoples, often with very violent histories, feel no inclination to do the same. Examing one’s conscience is a strong Judeo-Christian trait.
As for censorship – that’s a blunt instrument for suppressing dissent. A weapon for beaurocrats and apparatchiks. For disinformation to be effective it must support a vision of the world appealing to many.
And/ or they are covered under the laws of liable and slander if they pertain to an individual
Valid point – but…
Most people do not spend their time arguing points and countering untruths in a genteel debating society forum. Accepted ‘truth’ is more likely to be established by persuasion, influence and an appeal to an existing sympathetic worldview. Consider how readily we in the West have been persuaded to subject our history to moral reevaluation while other peoples, often with very violent histories, feel no inclination to do the same. Examing one’s conscience is a strong Judeo-Christian trait.
As for censorship – that’s a blunt instrument for suppressing dissent. A weapon for beaurocrats and apparatchiks. For disinformation to be effective it must support a vision of the world appealing to many.
That’s true. Mostly.
The thing is, an untruth is an untruth. It does not magically become true when seen from someone else’s standpoint.
Where I think we might agree is that untruths are best countered by truths, not by censorship.
One man’s misinformation is another man’s free speech – and vice versa.
Of course they are immune; they are infallible. Which might be why most of the rest of the of us have no respect or trust in them. It’s simple, right? They are always right and we are always wrong. Sign on, or be silenced.
Of course they are immune; they are infallible. Which might be why most of the rest of the of us have no respect or trust in them. It’s simple, right? They are always right and we are always wrong. Sign on, or be silenced.
Can we do away with the word ‘existential’? As in “…bring together thinkers who share ‘concerns about the global existential risks of disinformation'”. Soft-headed people (academics, activists, etc.) have gotten ahold of it, probably sprinkled their bed sheets with it, made tea with it, fed it to their loved ones and suddenly the world is racing toward multiple disasters every day. And there are new “ex$#10&ial” threats every week or so.
All because they so love the word that they can’t stop using it, like “cacciatore” or “ameliorate”. We could make our lives much easier if we could just cancel this word! Who’s with me?!
(Please don’t write in just to tell me your favorite words. I’m very susceptable.)
Can we do away with the word ‘existential’? As in “…bring together thinkers who share ‘concerns about the global existential risks of disinformation'”. Soft-headed people (academics, activists, etc.) have gotten ahold of it, probably sprinkled their bed sheets with it, made tea with it, fed it to their loved ones and suddenly the world is racing toward multiple disasters every day. And there are new “ex$#10&ial” threats every week or so.
All because they so love the word that they can’t stop using it, like “cacciatore” or “ameliorate”. We could make our lives much easier if we could just cancel this word! Who’s with me?!
(Please don’t write in just to tell me your favorite words. I’m very susceptable.)
maybe they should all read The master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist first. Truth is more an agreement amongst a group of people about opinions..
maybe they should all read The master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist first. Truth is more an agreement amongst a group of people about opinions..
Sarcasm and humour are the common methods for teaching people not to be gullible (I was going to give a definition of gullible, but apparently the word isn’t included in any modern online dictionaries).
Sarcasm and humour are the common methods for teaching people not to be gullible (I was going to give a definition of gullible, but apparently the word isn’t included in any modern online dictionaries).
This book and its underlying premises have been completely demolished by Nathan Pinkosky in his excellent piece entitled “The Fake New about Fake News.” in Boston Review.
This book and its underlying premises have been completely demolished by Nathan Pinkosky in his excellent piece entitled “The Fake New about Fake News.” in Boston Review.