Many people are becoming increasingly aware of the infrastructure being created by governments working hand-in-glove with Big Tech in order to censor any form of dissent. Even two years ago this view would have seemed somewhat paranoid, but through the important disclosures made by Senators Grassley and Hawley, the Twitter Files and also Big Brother Watch’s report on the Ministry of Truth, there is now irrefutable evidence that censorship is taking place on an unprecedented scale.
New research by Thinking Coalition shows that the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) is playing an integral part in this censorship. The research highlights connections (depicted on an interactive map) showing the unhealthy alliance between Big Tech, government agencies (mainly security related) and oligarch foundations who cooperate in order to shut down dissent.
ISD grew out of the Club of Three, established by Lord Weidenfeld in 1996. Although the initial initiative was on countering extremism, a very worthwhile cause, it appears that before Lord Weidenfeld’s death in 2016, the ISD had already been used to counter ‘disinformation’. Judging by its recent annual reports, it seems that the vast majority of ISD’s efforts are now focused on ‘disinformation’. In particular, the ISD seeks to restrict free speech in the areas of:
- 2020 election analysis;
- COVID-19 disinformation; and
- Climate Change disinformation.
Focusing on the second two objectives, it is clear that they are not related to countering extremism. Accordingly, we believe that the ISD’s activities have overreached its original and worthwhile purpose.
Broadly speaking ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ are defined by the ISD and others as views which do not comply with the state’s declared position on a given subject. The category of misinformation, in essence, relates to erroneous data or opinions, whereas disinformation is a position based on knowingly incorrect data or arguments. Misinformation and disinformation are terms the ISD applies to undermine and negate any challenge to the mainstream narrative. In reality, misinformation means very little, since human knowledge has advanced through argument and counterargument. The idea that the state, or ISD, establishes absolute truth indicates a high degree of arrogance.
This is a dangerous precedent given how wrong governments have been, especially in the very recent past, for example, stating vaccines are 95% effective against Covid infection. With government propaganda recently exposed, it is hard to imagine that anyone could trust in the narrative. Yet, the infallibility of governments is an important baseline for the ISD and other statists.
The basic methodology of ISD, as well as a plethora of similar organisations, is to trawl through social media posts in order to identify heretics questioning the state’s current position on any given subject. Such organisations have been known to compile databases of non-believers, the best known probably being the DeSmog: Climate Disinformation Database. Infamy is such that even death does not result in absolution, such as in the case of David Bellamy who remains targeted even in memoriam.
The ISD’s main focus is elucidating network graphs which visualise interactions of users via social media, primarily Twitter. To provide this analysis with a ‘sciencey’ feeling, various network analysis tools are used and statistics, such as network density, are quoted. However, the entire exercise is flawed from the outset since the interactions of atomised Twitter users do not constitute anything in the nature of a network. The diagrams visualise the intensity of interactions between various Twitter users based on likes and retweets. However, liking or retweeting material from another user does not make you part of a network and ninety-nine times out of a hundred Twitter users will never meet or have any other kind of interaction outside of Twitter. Subtly, the language applied to groupings of Twitter users who, to some extent, share opinions is always negative with terms such as ‘disinformation community’.
As well as labelling Twitter groups in this way, the ISD will also smear specific individuals who receive a lot of social media traction, i.e., those expressing popular views. The most commonly used and increasingly meaningless smears are: ‘far Right’, ‘anti-vaxxers’, ‘climate change deniers’.
In addition to static mapping, the ISD and others are moving to live mapping of discussions online. By their own description, this involves sophisticated programming and it is likely that an enormous amount of time and money is being invested into this technology, again with the main objective of silencing dissent. The ISD alone spends over £5 million per year and, at this stage, it is likely that tens of millions of pounds have been invested by such groups into developing tools to identify political dissent in the U.K. and other countries
Ironically, the ISD and others complain that the opponents of government climate policy are anti-science. Objectively, nobody is more anti-science that the climate alarmism lobby whereby their whole modus operandi is to identify a spokesperson with almost no scientific credentials (e.g., Greta Thunberg) who then seeks to emotionally manipulate the wider public into accepting climate alarmism. Bjorn Lomborg’s book False Alarm meticulously dissects stories on hurricanes, climate related deaths, polar bears etc., and shows that these stories are either misrepresented or are outright lies.
Climate alarmists, like everyone who pushes faulty dogma, aim to silence opposition. The ISD proposes censorship through legislative means and close cooperation with Big Tech platforms, where it has several related initiatives; one is to ensure that its particular world view is incorporated into Big Tech’s Community Standards. While this sounds reasonable, the reality is that ‘community guidelines’ means all things to all people and is open to interpretation. In our experience, these guidelines are little more than the state’s current position on any particular topic, certainly not any kind of absolute truth. Big Tech users can be accused of breaching those guidelines (as we have been), but without identifying the offending action and without providing any option to remedy this breach. The limited right of appeal (if it even exists) on Big Tech platforms is self-regulated by the platform itself and not referred to any external adjudicator; Big Tech is the judge, jury and executioner. In perfect Kafkaesque style, the original breach is often never specified, and the accused is not aware of the offending content which breached the vaguely worded community guidelines.
As set out in the excellent analysis by Francis Hoar in ‘In Protection of Freedom of Speech‘, there can never be a reasonable case for removing that which is neither illegal under criminal law or defamatory under civil law. There are already robust laws which outlaw the use of speech to incite racial, religious or other hatred and civil laws to prevent defamation and other transgressions. There is simply no reasonable basis under which a partisan organisation like the ISD can present its own views as absolute truth and then insist on platforms policing their users to remove dissent to the ISD’s position.
Also encouraged is state sanctioned censorship via legislation which covers the so-called ‘legal, but harmful’ categories of free speech. In addition, the ISD encourages further censorship via legislation including the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and the U.K. Online Safety Bill.
There is a very limited case for pointing out factually incorrect information posted on social media but only in clear cut cases of falsification and not in connection with views or opinions. In addition, this process should apply even-handedly, which would mean that in many cases it would be applied to the state and its representatives who regularly make untrue statements. For example, President Biden’s untrue statement that “you’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations”.
Strikingly, the authors of the ISD’s recent report ‘Deny, Deceive, Delay’ have little discernible scientific education or professional experience that would enable them to determine what is misinformation. The head of ISD Climate Research and Policy graduated in Arabic and Spanish and her prior experience was as Regional Director Arts at the British Council – but this lack of credentials doesn’t impinge on her willingness to smear scientists like Bjorn Lomborg.
In order to illuminate these nefarious connections, we developed a simple network map for the ISD, where the links between the ISD and others represent real world links in the form of funding or other cooperation. The exact nature of each link between entities in the map can be viewed by hovering over the relevant connection. The ISD lists its funders, but there is no indication as to the relative contributions and, therefore, the relative influence in the context of an approximate £5 million annual income.
The map includes three categories of entity which routinely feature in policy setting, namely:
- A small group of around four foundations set up by ultra-wealthy individuals;
- Big Tech companies;
- Multiple national government agencies.
The same small group of large foundations fund NGOs which develop policy in all major areas including public health, climate and in this case digital censorship (CIFF, Open Society Foundations and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation). They then link (via ISD in this case) with multiple governments around the world, particularly in the Anglosphere and in particular with security agencies of those governments.
Of course, cooperation between big business, governments and foundations is welcome, but there is the risk that this cooperation will be exploited and subvert the democratic process. Based on the recent disclosures via Senators Grassley, Hawley and others, it is clear that the cooperation between the state and Big Tech is moving in a unhealthy and coercive direction. Almost all major Big Tech companies appear in the ISD map, either as funders, partners in various initiatives (e.g., The Shared Endeavour Fund) or recipients of various reports from ISD. In the last category, ISD contacts Big Tech companies with a view to having specific content and users removed.
As mentioned above, the ISD cooperates with various other entities with a similar outlook. One such example is the charity Demos, which submitted a joint response to the Online Harms White Paper and shares common funders Google and the U.K. Government. Demos, in turn, is funded by GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), a U.K. Government intelligence agency.
Another important feature of the ISD map is the global nature of this cooperation, with multiple government agencies from the U.K., U.S., EU, Canada and Australia working with ISD.
The ISD (and others) claim a special status in their interactions with government as representatives of wider civil society. In fact, contrary to this, the ISD does not represent a large section of society, but, rather, actively works against sections of society by trying to censor popular commentators and researchers. It appears that government policy is disproportionately influenced by well-funded and well-organised interest groups like the ISD leading to increasing impositions placed on law abiding individuals who, by and large, wish to be left alone.
In conclusion, we believe that the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) censorship initiatives are not reasonable, are a threat to freedom and should be vigorously opposed.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
What a disgusting little money grubber May is, someone of so little moral fibre yet so preachy.
Isn’t she a very regular church goer??
Is she a ‘goer’?
Well she did have lots of photo ops outside church but some questioned whether she actually went into the Church’s. Would she tolerate a rival preacher in the same place?
At least the Queen did actually go into the church at Balmoral.
“Follow the money”.
Never fails.
Always leads to ‘the science’ and associated philosophical gospel and religous sermonising.
I think you will find Tony B’liar will have had a similar payment structure. All his so called “Speech” fundings will be in US dollars via payment’s by the back door for services rendered re Iraq. All his fees will be paid via a group of private companies that are used for the sole purpose of legitimatising payments paid by the US government. Ditto all the other HMG ministers over the years, for services rendered to the USA.
Well at least Tony Blair has admitted whatever the UK does regarding Net Zero, it will have no effect on global climate. How bizarre that a politician whose government gave us the climate change act in 2008, now admits that it is a sham. ——-Why doesn’t he just go the whole hog and admit is was never anything to do with the climate. It is pure eco socialism.
Fascinating
All of this fails to pass the smell test .The troughers present and past in the countries parliament have created a dark haze and stench of corruption fed by their Globalist paymasters .
The law needs changing such that anything that affects UK citizens that is driven by any supranational/ unaccountable ie non UK organisation must be voted on via referendum .
Current example being WHO pandemic policy plus of course the clusterfuck that Nett Zero is now and will be infuture ..
The UN is the devil here ..
The UN is the puppet cross of the devil.
Its just that its too late. ——The whole political establishment, the whole of the media, except maybe a bit of Fox or GB News (at times) and Trump are in on this top down control of the worlds wealth and resources by the global government in waiting at the UN. You and I and all the other readers here can rant all we want but no one is listening. The vast majority tune in at 6 pm to mainstream for their news and are brainwashed daily by climate propaganda and the idea of a climate crisis has become entrenched in their brain.
Not only this, but the various ‘publishing deals’ for politicians’ memoirs. Money laundering bribes, that’s what it is.
Needs a thorough investigation, trials and imprisonment.
Not forgetting David Milliband’s cushty NY based ‘charity’ directorship, Nick Clegg’s cushty role at Meta/Facebook and then there is David Cameron’s decision to make his personal company a private entity rather than a PLC once he left parliament, therefore negating the requirement to publish his accounts.
Related but separate, the rumours of Tony Blair becoming head of the WEF post Schwab are alarming…yet also I suspect the step too far that will blow the lid of this thing.
How could any Tory MP affiliate themselves to the WEF with him in charge? traitors to their party and country.
“How could any Tory MP affiliate themselves to the WEF with him in charge?”
Quite easily. The party of the ‘heir to Blair’ will have no difficulty at all.
And what are to think of the suckers who vote for them? They are dangerous people too.
Career politicians – that’s most of them – of course regard Office as an apprenticeship and where they can showcase themselves with a view to board directorships, consultancy work, speaking tours, sales of their memoirs and jobs on international bodies. The real money comes after they leave behind the wreckage they have caused.
Why do you ask?
On a side note but related topic. It is worth noting how many of the side-events at the recent Labour conference where hosted by the Tony B IFGC. It’s clear who is pulling the Labour party strings.
The speech circuit is the current Western equivalent of African or Arabian suitcases with cash.
Nothing else.
We are equally corrupt, but they are at least more honest than us.
Two further thoughts:
could her screw up of Brexit be another cause of her otherwise incredible earnings. There must be many Remainers who admire that.
could the devil himself be the ringmaster who proposes policies to be followed and procures the payments later. Blair, of course would be the first suspect.
someone in politics will know the answer.
Blatant money laundering. ‘Their’ puppet has danced to ‘their’ tune and must now be amply rewarded but inconspicuously so. Speaking engagements are clearly a good ploy for this but upon scrutiny who on earth would pay someone without a f**king clue about anything so much money? I mean what can Theresa May possibly have to say about anything. She’s got not a single creative idea in her head. It’s a game. Anyone believing that May gets paid for her thoughts on anything is seriously deluded.
When Bliar launched himself on the “speaking circuit” I said much the same. Why would anyone pay money to listen to a thieving, treasonous toe-rag like Bliar.
Money laundering as payment for services delivered.
This is the kind of great investigatory reporting that is now completely missing from the corporate media. That in itself deserves some investigation too.
Leaflet – Your Taxes Enrich Wind And Solar Companies
And failed politicians
How’s that called when politicians take money from shady foreign entities for implementing policies which go against the good of their own country? Ok, nowadays, it’s called Acting for the greater good but how used it to be called?
Its about time the public realised that our politicians are only answerable to external commercial interests.
Obsborne as Chancellor made sure we racked up a huge national debt which is not in our interests but it is in the interests of external UK and foreign commercial concerns.
The words ‘treason’ and ‘traitor’ come to mind.
And Cameron helped him do it.
It is far worse than people realise for example the dreadful way in which retired wind turbines are disposed of. Non-biodegradable plastics of huge proprtions just hidden or buried in the ground. If you really understood the situation with nuclear waste. It is crazy when you look at the big picture and what they are doing to it whilst pretending to do the opposite. You have to understand the level of capture. If you don’t then just try to carry on for the next few years. Trust me you won’t last the next six months this is a different time.
Good God! It’s all about the money. Not a principle in sight. Disgraceful.
Like the EU awarding…ahem…”prizes”. No doubt “grants” from philanthropic foundations serve a similar purpose. Who pays the piper…
It reminds me of the Robin Williams quote
Politicians should wear Sponsor jackets like NASCAR drivers so we know who owns them.
Mummy, where do politicians come from?
Well darling, when a clown and a serial killer love each other very much …..”
The article says “May tied the country to net zero”. ——-What? Do all other politicians not have an opinion then? They had the chance to vote on this amendment and none of them voted against it. It was simply waved through. ——-But ok so most policies you would think are put in place because they will have an effect on something , or at least that is the intention. But Net Zero will have no effect on global climate. So why do it? ——–The answer to that question is crucial and it is this. ————It isn’t about the climate, and it never was.
And let us not forget that all of these payments would be tax deductible. So much of these payments will be funded by your tax money. What a scam these elites have rigged up. Me, me, me, me, me seems to be the theme! Just need to add some music.
My grannie (from Huddersfield) said there was no way I could make a car out of spaghetti. You should have seen her face when I drove past her.