A Theory Of Mis- & Disinformation & Its Uses In Propaganda

Hillary wants (not unusually) to have her political enemies arrested. She says that people who post "misinformation" could be "criminally charged", and that this would be "a deterrent" against "misinformation." In California, Gruesome Newsom "signed a bill into law Tuesday banning the distribution of  'election communications that contain materially deceptive content,' including obvious parodies." This would likely include "mis-" or "disinformation".

This being so, we need to understand precisely what "misinformation" is.

I came across a peer-reviewed paper from the leading Regime training camp with the title “A survey of expert views on misinformation: Definitions, determinants, solutions, and future of the field“. They said Expert “views diverged on the importance of intentionality and what exactly constitutes misinformation.” They concluded amazing things like “pseudoscience and conspiracy theories are misinformation, while satirical news is not.”

Of course, there is no such thing as pseudoscience: there is only good and bad science. Some conspiracy theories are false, some true, and some uncertain on the information available to those outside real conspiracies.

These Experts thus did not do a marvelous job. And anyway, I didn’t think it was that hard to define these terms. So I did so.

The Briggs definition of misinformation are propositions which are claimed true but which are provably false, or which are claimed false but which are provably true. The truths are with respect to observations or necessary truths. Disinformation is no different, except with respect to motivation: those who produce misinformation are sincere in their errors (they do not know they make a mistake), while those who produce disinformation are insincere (they know they are lying).

A classic example of disinformation is when the Fabulous Fauci, and his CDC counterpart Rochelle Walenski, came out during the covid panic and swore that those who were vaxed could not become sick and could not pass on the virus. They knew this was false, and so were lying.

Both persons were members of the government, and their words became parts of official policies. So their lies became Official Truths. Which shows that Official Truths can be actual lies. Official Truths are those propositions claimed true by rulers. It does not follow that all Official Truths are lies: some might be true. Since Official Truths are often used in propaganda, and it being a good rule of propaganda to mix in actual truth with lies, Official Truths can be useful truths.

In logic, the contrary of any truth is a falsity, and the contrary of any falsity is a truth. By analogy, the contraries of Official Truths are Official Misinformation or Official Disinformation, depending on the ascribed motivation of those giving out unofficial propositions. Though this is looser, because rulers will often use the terms interchangeably. When an Official Truth is an actual lie, its contrary is an actual falsity. The contraries of Official Misinformation or Official Disinformation are Official Truths. When the Official Mis- or Disinformation is an actual lie, its contraries are actual truths.

This fluidity in Official propositions makes it all somewhat difficult to discern what is happening when Official Truths or Official Mis- or Disinformation are being discussed.

A real truth, however, is that no truth is a truth because rulers have said so, nor is any falsity a falsity because rulers have said so. That is the Appeal to Authority Fallacy, which, of course, rulers are keen on when their Official Truths are actual lies, and vice versa. As always in logic, every proposition must be judged on its own merit, and with respect to the premises, assumptions, evidence, observations that one assume holds.

Here is an example, in a headline: “France’s CNews fined for broadcasting climate scepticism unchallenged“.

A popular French rolling news channel has been fined for broadcasting climate scepticism unchallenged…

It was accused of allowing one of its guests to defend a controversial thesis on the human origin of climate change – without providing any rebuttal…

It’s in extra hot water this week, though, with the Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication (Arcom) fining the channel €20,000 for broadcasting controversial climate scepticism without balanced reporting. 

“This is the first time in France and internationally that Arcom or a regulatory authority has issued a financial sanction for a breach concerning an environmental subject,” QuotaClimat, an association that campaigns for better media coverage of ecological issues, said in response.

The French government has tacitly assumed the Official Truth that “climate change”—left vague and undefined—has one cause and they know what it is. The government’s proposition cannot be backed up with certainty. After all, how many times have we heard (the ridiculous) statistic “97% climate scientists agree”? That means, logically, that some disagree. Therefore, it is not a certainty that “climate change”, whatever that might be, has one certain cause.

Rulers allow, in the magnanimity, the airing of disagreements of this Official Truth, but insist these disagreements are accompanied by statements of the Official Truth. Understand exactly where the lie is: if French rulers merely said that there is a chance, and the chance was anything less than certainty, their preferred theory was correct, their Official Truth would be an actual truth. As it is, it a lie and used in the service of propaganda.

Thus uncertain propositions which carry their uncertainty with them can never be falsities; they are true propositions as long as the stated uncertainties (numerical or verbal) accord with the assumed or presumed true evidence. (Those following the Class with grasp this.) Example: “I think this-and-such conspiracy theory is true for the following reasons” cannot be a falsity, unless at least one of the reason can be shown to be indubitably false. When the reasons are themselves only uncertain, there is no falsity, and therefore any ruler labeling the proposition as Official Mis- or Disinformation has committed a fallacy.

Here is another example, from someone who went through Twitter’s algorithm to see which tweets were boosted and which suppressed. The code reveals downweighting for “misinformation”. That must necessarily mean that Twitter holds a list of Official Truths—at the least the contraries of the “misinformation”. We don’t see what this “misinformation” is, except that it is broken down by type, such as Civic, Medical, and Emergency, so we cannot judge the veracity of the propositions. We don’t know who specifies these Official Truths.

There are clues, however, because rulers in Australia announce they want to fine companies like Twitter “up to 5%” of their global revenue for “enabling misinformation.” According to one story, “The government said it would make tech platforms set codes of conduct governing how they stop dangerous falsehoods spreading, to be approved by a regulator.”

This must mean that these tech platforms have a list of Official Truths, or that they have a “portal” or some access point where rulers can insert these Official Truths.

“Misinformation and disinformation pose a serious threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy,” said Communications Minister Michelle Rowland in a statement.

“Doing nothing and allowing this problem to fester is not an option.”

Yes, it is. Doing nothing is often the exact right thing to do. As it is, it is a good bet that even if rulers start out with nothing but necessary truths on their list of Official Truths, they will very quickly let the power to define Official Truth go to their narrow heads. And indeed that is what we saw in the covid panic.

This becomes crucially important when we recall the EU, as stated by Ursula von der Leyen, says “the biggest threats” to her Regime are Official Mis- and Disinformation. They will crack down with the Digital Services Act. Which, again, necessarily means the EU will and must hold a list of Official Truths.

If this list contained only true truths, it would be no bad thing. The gathering or policing of Official Truths is only a problem when the list has falsities. As, we might guess, this one will.

Another example: “A new law in Scotland threatens you with seven years in JAIL if you misgender someone.” (JK Rowling famously is bucking this law.) Rulers in Scotland have defined a falsity as an Official Truth, and will punish those who tell the truth.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.