How "disinformation" is actually used, apparently...

This was a difficult thread to put together.

Firstly, it was difficult because by the time I had learned of this, I was privy only to a 'part 2' of the information. I had to 'go back' and see the part one of the pieces, which added considerations I found to be difficult integrate without a complete rewrite. Secondly, it was difficult because it is a piece of editorial journalism crafted by a source which notoriously inserts its own elements and style from the original source. Thirdly, because the original source is even more conservatively biased than the initial piece I had read, and that means I had to take care not to affect their telling without misrepresentation.

For ease of reference:

US State Department Funding Secret 'Disinformation' Crusade To Blacklist Conservative Media

Disinformation Inc: Meet the groups hauling in cash to secretly blacklist conservative news

Disinformation Inc: State Department bankrolls group secretly blacklisting conservative media

Players

I have chosen to begin by describing a few players in the scenario. I recalled that on February 6th, 2023 the UN Secretary General said "We'll call for action from everywhere with influence on the spread of 'mis- and disinformation' on the Internet."
twitter.com...

There is an NGO that has surfaced from the internet primordial goo.. "The Global Disinformation Index" whose principle agents organized into a 501c corporation (non-profit) in 2018... in their mission statement they offer:

GDI - Global Disinformation Index

The Global Disinformation Index was born out of this need for data, specifically the need for transparent, independent neutral disinformation risk ratings across the open web. GDI’s founders recognized early on that in order to disrupt the business model of disinformation, commercial companies, researchers and policymakers alike need access to independent ratings of news sites’ disinformation risk.

Taken from: www.disinformationindex.org...

And so, they describe themselves as "a transparent independent neutral" evaluator curbing bad information on the internet... which we would assume means they propose THAT to be the primary source of bad information.

They further assert their "neutrality" by explaining that they are a non-political, nonpartisan, and global in nature... partnered with "dozens" of countries (although how it can be non-political while "partnered" with so many governments defies reason.) They define their "independence" by pointing out that GDI does not take funding from media companies or grants from technology companies (presumably we are to infer that those are THE "sources" of dis/mis-information... but they do admit their funding comes from governments, other NGOs and most saliently through "licensing" data to "those who can use it to defund disinformation." So it is, ultimately, a business. In regard to "transparency' they offer the usual platitudes about frameworks for their conduct... something every such organizations professes to the public.

The Washington Examiner

Here we find the Washington Examiner who the wiki describes as

The Washington Examiner is an American Conservative news outlet which consists principally of an online/digital website with a weekly magazine, based in Washington, D.C. It is owned by MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group, which is owned by Philip Anschutz.

Taken from: en.wikipedia.org...

The key word here is "conservative." Which means, in the 'relativism of perception" game, the further left you are, the further right leaning you will consider them to be. Of course, relativism is never the final word... dissent comes from differences after all...

Apparently, the Washington Examiner, has suffered the consequences of GDI's "transparent, Independant, and Neutral" ranking by being listed in the index as a provider of mis/dis-information. And quite evidently, they are not happy about it.

The articles from the Washinton Examiner, parts one and two

Part one
Disinformation Inc: Meet the groups hauling in cash to secretly blacklist conservative news

EXCLUSIVE — Well-funded "disinformation" tracking groups are part of a stealth operation blacklisting and trying to defund conservative media, likely costing the news companies large sums in advertising dollars, a Washington Examiner investigation found.

Major ad companies are increasingly seeking guidance from purportedly "nonpartisan" groups claiming to be detecting and fighting online "disinformation." These same "disinformation" monitors are compiling secret website blacklists and feeding them to ad companies, with the aim of defunding and shutting down disfavored speech, according to sources familiar with the situation, public memos, and emails obtained by the Washington Examiner.

In this first article we are introduced to the principles and their perspective about the institutionalized effort to invoke 'defunding' of news sources that don't pass the litmus test for 'good information.' Offering primary exposure to GDI and its board members, one of whom described disinformation as fuel for "violent extremism and public health crises." Not unexpectedly, they characterize GDI's mission as to "remove the financial incentive" to create "disinformation," which I think may not be adequate since it implies that disinformation is "created" for ad money.
It appears it is the idea behind the article that money is the issue at hand. And I suppose that it is, since the entire point of the effort is to remove funding from anyone that GDI classifies as a source of disinformation.

But it's not just GDI, others are mentioned. Newsguard, for one, who responded to the article with a comment which in part says, "...NewsGuard ratings are done based on fully transparent, apolitical criteria relating to basic journalistic practice. Unlike the other companies, we always contact sites before issuing ratings to get their feedback if they fail even one of our nine criteria..." Others like DoubleVerify, and Integrated Ad Science (AIS) are also covered here. The author points out that all of these companies rely heavily on "artificial intelligence algorithms" which we here at ATS have often found to be less than 1% "AI" and more than 99% "applied algorithm" ... but that discussion would be a different thread entirely.

Continued

One quote said "AI is the censorship workhorse, the secret sauce, and virtually no professional disinformation company in 2023 enters the industry without some AI tech aspect to their censorship scheme — whether that's AI for identifying posts, for flagging posts, for sorting targeted online communities, or for mapping interrelations between different targeted online communities." I have misgivings about the whole sorting targeted online communities, or for mapping interrelations between different targeted online communities angle... but maybe that's just me.

Part two

Disinformation Inc: State Department bankrolls group secretly blacklisting conservative media

The Department of State has funded a deep-pocketed "disinformation" tracking group that is secretly blacklisting and trying to defund conservative media, likely costing the news organizations vital advertising dollars, the Washington Examiner can confirm.

The Global Disinformation Index, a British organization with two affiliated U.S. nonprofit groups, is feeding blacklists to ad companies with the intent of defunding and shutting down websites peddling alleged "disinformation," the Washington Examiner reported . This same "disinformation" group has received $330,000 from two State Department-backed entities linked to the highest levels of government, raising concerns from First Amendment lawyers and members of Congress.

Herein lies the 'beef' of the claim that the US government is engaging in third-party censorship... considering the massive amount of money they funnel into organizations, for example, an NGO called the "National Endowment for Democracy. (NED)"

Now, we could go on for pages about the NED... here's a taste:

...NED successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in 1996; helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992; and worked to defeat the candidate for prime minister of Slovakia in 2002 who was out of favor in Washington. And from 1999 to 2004, NED heavily funded members of the opposition to President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to subvert his rule and to support a referendum to unseat him.

Additionally, in the 1990s and afterward, NED supported a coalition of groups in Haiti known as the Democratic Convergence, who were united in their opposition to Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his progressive ideology, while he was in and out of the office of the president. 9

The Endowment has made its weight felt in the electoral-political process in numerous other countries.

Taken from: williamblum.org...

But suffice to say the old 'guilt by association" trope applies when considering that GDI and the NED may have relations that transcend the casual. It is, of course, a war of words when it comes down to what a reader may think "counts" or not when evaluating the purpose of "keeping the internet free of misinformation" and "on who's behalf"... the UN? the NED? Globalists? Big Pharma? The CO2 Cartel? It's all good for theories of the forbidden kind...

The NED's board of directors "controls" how it spends congressional appropriations, according to the nonprofit group's website. That 23-member board includes liberal journalist Anne Applebaum, who also sits on GDI's advisory panel, ...

I'm undecided if that might represent a true conflict of interest, someone might run with that ball... Apparently, the NED is a bipartisan affair though... so no political theater seems to have struck it. Sort of like the Council on Foreign Relations... sorry, different topic...

GDI has also disclosed taking money from Disinfo Cloud, an unclassified and defunct platform through the State Department's Global Engagement Center. Disinfo Cloud was used between 2018 and 2021 by Congress and over a dozen federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Energy, Treasury, and the FBI , according to the State Department.

Well... the US State Department did give birth to Disinfo Cloud, and it was used by Congress and over a dozen federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Energy, Treasury, and the FBI , according to the State Department. It appears to have been central in establishing the framework for all this "Let's silence bad info" on the internet cooperation.

Disinfo Cloud is dead now... after the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee refused to "prematurely" reauthorize funding... which seems weird to me.. but that's another story.

The Summary

I understand the efforts the Washington Examiner's Editor in Chief is putting into addressing the NGO machinery that has been brought to bear against it. It is a money thing after all... but in today's world where globalist can influence what we learn and see, operating in the information world is becoming more about saying what certain folks want said, and nothing else.

We live with part of our communication world online. Since that became possible, many who would rather the role of a citizen would be as a consumer, spitting time between economic productivity and entertainment consumption, found an amazing phenomenon... people still speak to each other. This did not fit in their model. Without exception all of a certain kind of social leadership constructs have discovered that they simply MUST control information... because without that - they cannot control masses of people. Worst for them still was the emergence of an idea... that idea was pivotal, they discovered all too late... "You can't fool all of the people, all of the time." Eventually, people tell each other things... and lies become offenses.

These newer enterprises are about keeping people from communicating with one another... they leverage their well-crafted imagery of infallibility and authority, against whatever information they wish you to embrace, automatically rendering counter arguments and conflicting information as 'bad' or dis/mis-information ... These 'disinfo police" efforts are part of that, and even when it is not ... it still could be.

It seems beyond evident that "disinformation" is relative to the evaluators' position... after all, can anyone deny that the mainstream "acceptable" news sources have provided the public with massive disinformation that they will likely never acknowledge or suffer consequences for?

Thank you for indulging me with your time. I hope you found this interesting at least. Even if my opinions are wrong in your estimation, I appreciate the time you took to listen.

a reply to: Maxmars

Thank you for all the work you've done putting this thread together! It articulates what a lot here know is happening and brings it all together in one place for digesting.

The internet seems to have blossomed into a whole new war front, and I'm not sure the good guys are going to win. There's a lot of corruption in gov. orgs that will have to be dealt with, but at least we know we're in a fight now and more importantly, what we're fighting for/against.

a reply to: nugget1

Honestly, I think it's them who need to be worried. Almost every day we can see them falling all over themselves to "get a grip" on what they must consider "the beast." (It reminds me of the song lyric "... they stabbed with their steely knives but they just can't kill the beast.")

Their problem is both perennial and "inbred." What the authors of these 'control frenzies' just don't get is that what they 'wish for' just can't exist... we are humans... they want robots.

Most often they simply can't attack the truth... so they call it something else and "hope" we will buy it.

Anyone who disagrees with the narrative is a right wing extremist. Anyone who points out inconvenient truths is a conspiracy theorist.

Recently the word conspiracy theorist, which was created to discredit those who believed the government was behind the Kennedy assassination, was vindicated when it was admitted the government was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

None the less, the word still serves as a useful pejorative designed to automatically discredit Anyone who speaks inconvenient truths.

Using strategies outlined above, government agencies have conducted a massive 5th generational warfare campaign along with the mocking bird media to brainwash the masses into believing plandemic myths.

Everything literally revolves around not allowing the truth to be acknowledged because the great reset depends on it.


The Rothschilds are pulling the strings and using the committee of 300, WEF, and Bilderberg as steering commitees. Their agendas are then codified and implemented through the WHO and UN. These policies and objectives are then passed down to intelligence agencies and DOD which are then executed at the state level, and every country is in lockstep.

It's not a coincidence, it's a large plan being carried out that was planned for decades. Only the people at the top know the real story, most are greedy useful idiots, and the masses just obey as they are told by the mainstream media.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I have to say, it does appear that ALL the information that is the target of "systematic" suppression appears to be confined to whatever challenges the left-wing paradigms (dare I say neo-Marxism). I strain to see examples of left wing 'disinformation' ... most of their activities are 'reactive' to their opposition... they only amplify one side.

Also, their idea of disinformation seems to refuse the privilege of self-directed thought. It is always characterized as 'against consensus' without any possible room for discussion, nor a clear explanation of the 'consensus makers.' They have even been partially successful in creating a "science consensus" image in the minds of the public... as if facts were to be 'agreed upon,' and not defined by a specific process.

I wonder, what's the difference between disinformation and propaganda? And when did it become common to consider all people incapable of making a determination for themselves?

Is the consequence of 'being wrong' on the internet automatically becoming a disinformation source?

If I'm wrong, I'm a disinformation-spewing criminal? ... Unless, of course, I am a mainstream 'talking head' ... they have license to be wrong... ever see one of them say... "I was wrong?" Somehow, I don't think we'll see that happening.

a reply to: Maxmars

When you can't have an official ministry of truth, you create one through private "non-profit" organizations.

originally posted by: Maxmars
It seems beyond evident that "disinformation" is relative to the evaluators' position... after all, can anyone deny that the mainstream "acceptable" news sources have provided the public with massive disinformation that they will likely never acknowledge or suffer consequences for?

Amen


This is alot of information you have provided.
It'll take me some time to go through and do my homework with all this.
Also thanks for the disclaimer at the start.

a reply to: Maxmars

I guess once it becomes a weapon, there are branches that have the license to use them without making themselves guilty of anything wrong. That's the nature of the MIC.
There is only one morally wrong in capitalism, and that's deficit. Humans are just a resource to be mined, the sooner we understand that, the sooner we won't be baffled by the world around us...

The worst enemy of the globalist is the America's freedom of speech, because is guarantee by the constitution, for years we have been bombarded with misinformation but thanks to the internet we make our own decisions of what is lies or truth.

This do not set well with our own government and neither with those that are looking to control the world with the help of entire countries leadership.

More than ever our freedom of speech has been under attack no only by those outside the US but also by politicians in the US that are promoting one world order.

With the internet information is now easily available, but also opinions and theories, the goal of globalist is completely control of information, but this is not easily attainable and those behind this agenda are finding out hard way.

What bothers me the most is all the traitors we got in government trying to rewrite history while undermining our guaranteed freedoms in our country.

Our nation over bloated government is stealing and laundering the taxpayer money for their own personal goals.

The entities behind all this will take our nation to the ground to rebuild it into a twisted utopian society.

a reply to: Maxmars

Wow, well, thank you for this........but it is exhausting.

a reply to: Klassified

Isn't it weird though that as they stumbled into the 21st century they should have realized that a 'ministry of truth' can only exist where there are no "other" ministries of truth.

The only way to actually 'control' information is to be its sole source.

In lieu of that, they foolishly assumed that controlling the 'echo points' would grant them equivalent control. They think that by establishing a regulatory regime they might 'overlay' control onto the pesky realities which they want to betray.

And even more foolishly still, they assumed that by some mechanism of social engineering they could reduce humans into a robot-like state of existence where humans would simply choose to ignore, not only 'unapproved' information, but each other as well.

Which is why I have pointed this out before (and elsewhere) ... not only will they fail, but they're already failing now, and soon they will commence destroying each other (they may have already) to try and survive when the bus hits the wall ...

a reply to: Allaroundyou

It took quite a bit more time than I thought it would to prepare this... and I am grateful that you might find it useful. Take your time, and by all means, add or correct as necessary ...

I'm especially pleased that you found the disclaimer of value... I have "opted" out of the idea before because I thought no one would appreciate it... Thank you, in return.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Maxmars

I guess once it becomes a weapon, there are branches that have the license to use them without making themselves guilty of anything wrong. That's the nature of the MIC.
There is only one morally wrong in capitalism, and that's deficit. Humans are just a resource to be mined, the sooner we understand that, the sooner we won't be baffled by the world around us...

I think many of us who 'observe' things more 'robustly' learned that lesson with greater impact. When information control is a function of 'force' the information itself serves less purpose and has less value. The control becomes more important than the content.

I agree that their posture is that humans are a resource to be exploited. And exploitation is their vice.

a reply to: marg6043

I will always count myself lucky to be living when it became clear that the American experiment was "too successful" for globalist dominion ...

It made it possible for me to witness the ideological flailing and political flummery of the globalists and their elite minions doing everything in their power to "undo" the sovereignty that Americans achieved and embedded within their society.

Globalists are just the closet "kings, queens, and princes" of their fantasy realm. "Sovereignty" is only for them in their estimation... any who contest that are just "upstarts."

Welcome to America..., a nation chock full of upstarts.

Even our own presidents and beloved celebrity talking heads have yielded to globalism.

And still America and her sovereign citizens stand unbowed. Long may that remain so.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Maxmars

Wow, well, thank you for this........but it is exhausting.

I promise you... as I was putting this together, I kind of knew it would be. But still, like an especially long run, I was tired afterwards, but glad I had done it.

I was thinking of making a separate thread about this, but given so few responded to it I will simply offer this here...

Microsoft Allows 'Blacklisted' Conservative Sites Back Into Advertising Program

and from the Washington Examiner:

Disinfor mation Inc: Microsoft removes conservative sites from blacklist 'defunding' outlets

EXCLUSIVE — Microsoft has removed negative flags for conservative media outlets that have blocked them from reaping key advertising dollars amid the corporation launching an internal review and suspending its subscription to a "disinformation" tracking group's blacklist used to "defund" disfavored speech, according to internal data obtained by the Washington Examiner.

The Microsoft-owned Xandr, a major advertising company, previously abided by a secret blacklist of conservative news compiled by the Global Disinformation Index, a British organization with two affiliated U.S. nonprofit groups. Now, as Microsoft appears to be taking steps to distance itself from GDI , the company has, for the time being, deleted flags such as "false/misleading" and "reprehensible/offensive" for right-leaning websites, data show.

Bolding is mine.

It seems the cat was let out of the bag...

In addition to the Examiner itself, Xandr had labeled 39 conservative domains as overwhelmingly "false/misleading." Christian site Townhall, meanwhile, was labeled as "reprehensible/offensive."

Other sites labeled "false/misleading" included the Washington Examiner, the Daily Wire, RealClearPolitics, Drudge Report, Newsmax, Breitbart, the Blaze, the Washington Times, Judicial Watch, and MRC.TV, which is under the Media Research Center, according to the report.

Now, an updated Xandr dataset provided to the Washington Examiner reveals that the above websites no longer have a designation - however it's unclear whether this means they're featuring the same ads as websites with an "approved" classification.