The concept of "mal-information"—factually true information deemed harmful—is a tool for narrative control. It allows powerful groups to suppress uncomfortable truths by framing them as a threat, effectively making certain realities undiscussable even when they are verifiably true.
Related Insights
The ultimate test of free speech is allowing potentially harmful ideas to circulate. While this may lead to negative consequences, it is preferable to the alternative. The 20th century saw 200 million people killed by their own governments, demonstrating that the tyranny required to enforce narrative control is a far greater danger.
A coming battle will focus on 'malinformation'—facts that are true but inconvenient to established power structures. Expect coordinated international efforts to pressure social media platforms into censoring this content at key chokepoints.
Making misinformation illegal is dangerous because human progress relies on being wrong and correcting course through open debate. Granting any entity the power to define absolute 'truth' and punish dissent is a hallmark of authoritarianism that freezes intellectual and societal development.
A content moderation failure revealed a sophisticated misuse tactic: campaigns used factually correct but emotionally charged information (e.g., school shooting statistics) not to misinform, but to intentionally polarize audiences and incite conflict. This challenges traditional definitions of harmful content.
Former journalist Natalie Brunell reveals her investigative stories were sometimes killed to avoid upsetting influential people. This highlights a systemic bias that protects incumbents at the expense of public transparency, reinforcing the need for decentralized information sources.
To circumvent First Amendment protections, the national security state framed unwanted domestic political speech as a "foreign influence operation." This national security justification was the legal hammer used to involve agencies like the CIA in moderating content on domestic social media platforms.
According to Kiriakou, a former CIA director coined the term 'conspiracy theory' as a deliberate strategy to marginalize and dismiss individuals who were accurately exposing secret and unethical agency operations like MKUltra, making them sound irrational.
Instead of outright banning topics, platforms create subtle friction—warnings, errors, and inconsistencies. This discourages users from pursuing sensitive topics, achieving suppression without the backlash of explicit censorship.
Effective political propaganda isn't about outright lies; it's about controlling the frame of reference. By providing a simple, powerful lens through which to view a complex situation, leaders can dictate the terms of the debate and trap audiences within their desired narrative, limiting alternative interpretations.
Anti-disinformation NGOs openly admit their definition of "disinformation" is not about falsehood. It includes factually true information that "promotes an adverse narrative." This Orwellian redefinition justifies censoring inconvenient truths to protect a preferred political outcome.
