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.
Dame Melanie Dawes, a regular Davos attendee, is CEO of OFCOM. Given what’s happened to Mark Steyn of GB News, it’s not difficult to join the dots. She blames ‘ambiguity’ for the BBC/Lineker furore, not the fact that Lineker is an overpaid bell.
And the BBC is beyond repair…
What a depressing read, having what I can or can’t say online being dictated by the likes of Biden, Trudeau, Hancock, Johnson and of the rest of the parasite class enrages me.
I’m not sure how much of the population even thinks the ‘news’ is unbiased anymore…after the last three years there must be many more of us surely?
I know they aren’t always trustworthy..but all polls in the last few years have shown a fall in the trust people have in the press..including the BBC…and nearly half the population avoids the news entirely, apparently…..
The UK Government has recently awarded the BBC World Service £20 million to support language services and English-language broadcasting, as part of the Integrated Review refresh.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-funding-agreed-to-keep-bbc-world-service-on-air
Foreign Secretary James Cleverly said:
So we know their agenda. I don’t know whether they really believe their own propaganda, or if it’s part of the sound the dying ‘West’ makes when it knows many of its own citizens, and the rest of the world, the majority, isn’t interested in what it’s selling anymore?
Any official or quasi official organisation that claims to be stopping or attempting to stop “misinformation” or “disinformation” is immediately written off by me as an organisation spouting lies. These outfits are pursuing an Orwellian future and employing the very language of ‘1984’ in order to accelerate the process. I am not interested in their utterances or their people. Traitors all.
“I know they aren’t always trustworthy..but all polls in the last few years have shown a fall in the trust people have in the press..including the BBC…and nearly half the population avoids the news entirely, apparently…..”
I would bet money that a lot of the people who fall into this category are lefties who think the news is right wing. I know people like this.
I think you are right.
Fewer people trust the news. The ones that don’t fall into two camps. One that believes a plutocratic elite control everything and are trying to create a green socialist dystopia, and the other that believes a plutocratic elite control everything and are trying to create a capitalist dystopia and don’t care at all about the environment.
Neither is entirely wrong.
It’s a crony capitalist dystopia, with a green socialist front.
Yes, I would agree. Difference is arguably that the lefties are voting for people who are actively promoting this dystopia.
In most places it’s difficult to vote at all without “voting for people who are actively promoting this dystopia.”
Indeed
In the U.K. Heritage are sound but don’t stand everywhere- also Freedom Alliance, maybe Reclaim and SDP
Otherwise spoil ballot paper
Or vote against the incumbent: it doesn’t change policy but it can wreck a political career.
If you are represented by an MP who holds a ministerial post and thus receives an additional >£70k p.a. over and above their C£85k MPs salary they are part of the Payroll Vote. You may be certain that they will never be receptive to any point of view not approved by the party let alone vote any time against the government/party line because they will lose their ministerial salary and perks and, worse, be forever passed over.
Mine is such an MP. He has a majority comfortably over 21,000. Since resigning from his high flying banking career and election in 2015, he has been busy climbing the greasy pole of Tory politics; he has now had ministerial appointments under four PMs. Bright, crafty and ambitious in my opinion; as long as he keeps his nose clean he will retain his seat at the next GE and will be a contender for leader of the rump of the reformed Tory party in opposition and perhaps eventually PM when the worm turns against the socialist factions within five years. And he’ll still be in his 50s.
So is he in parliament to represent my views or those of his party? You tell me.
I no longer trust the BBC and no way am I a lefty. I didn’t like or believe their lies about Covid and I don’t like or believe their lies about climate. The BBC contributed to the government’s right to impose Covid restrictions, which crippled our country and removed our hard won freedoms, and they are now continuing to validate the crazy net-zero agenda which will have an even worse effect on our economy. I know ‘lefties’ as you call them who have the same views as I do about these things. The truth should be neither left or right wing, but we don’t get it from the BBC, our government or its departments. It seems there are many well funded evil organisations that are operating to try to keep the truth from us, so we must continue our efforts to discover it and support those who tell it.
Indeed. My point was that polls showing that people don’t trust the BBC or whoever will include a substantial proportion of people who think the BBC are terribly right-wing and pro-government.
This article probably confirms to all Sceptic readers that the conspiracy is in fact true .
The fewer people that “trust” public MSM outlets or even listen to them the greater the social isolation and atomisation of us all.
In the modern society the nature of multichannel , multimedia and international information sources compounds this .
I think that only way forward is forming local groups to fight back against the Globalists .
Making this a reality is however tough..
“the conspiracy is in fact true”
You mean the THEORY. Why do so many people use the word “conspiracy” as if it meant myth? The mainstream media are trying to equate the two, so let’s not help them, as if conspiracies do not exist. They want to eliminate the concept from our language, at the time when the actual thing itself most predominates.
Spot on.
No need to use the word conspiracy when the reality is we are talking FACTS.
Sigh.
When are supposedly sensible, reasonable people going to understand the concept of the thin end of the wedge?
Yes, extremism such as denying that covid was a deadly pandemic. Appeasement got us into this mess.
Two concerns:
1 censorship 2020 election analysis is ignored in this article. Why?
2.”Of course, cooperation between big business, governments and foundations is welcome,…”
I don’t see how this is obvious at all and ever a good thing.
ISD: Institute for the Suppression of Dissent. It is utterly bizarre how people can be so certain of the moral superiority of their opinions that they need to suppress dissent. It is medieval.
“… it is likely that an enormous amount of time and money is being invested into this technology” – Yes yes yes, but it’s ‘invested in‘, not “into“!!! (A very common mistake these days. Sorry – the pedantry wells up in a chap now and then. Don’t get me wrong – very important article.)
Yet another reason, if one were needed, to stay well away from Arsebook and Twatter
Is moving? Its already gone there and beyond!
Thanks, Alex, for informing us about this. It explains how the net-zero craziness has taken grip of so many people, and why proper scientists who try to demonstrate how crazy it is and the damage it is causing are not getting heard. The ISD is a dangerously anti-community organisation which is a having a very negative impact on the world and is acting against fair free speech. It is a travesty that our government and some of its departments or operations are contributing to it. How do we stop this?
The authorities are not infallible and can be wrong.