United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has introduced a policy plan aimed at eliminating content from digital platforms that contradicts what he terms the “empirically supported consensus on facts, science, and knowledge.”
The initiative, outlined in his policy brief “Information Integrity on Digital Platforms,” responds to what Guterres identifies as an existential threat – disseminating misinformation online that undermines what he calls scientifically ‘established’ facts.
Guterres’ proposal has drawn criticism for presupposing scientific truth’s nature and its potential to stifle debates.
The report contains controversial statements, such as “75% of UN peacekeepers said misinformation and disinformation affected their security.”
(United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres)
This figure, however, appears to be inflated since another section claims that only 70% of peacekeepers found that disinformation had a very large, critical, or low influence on their work.
The method of presentation has been seen as manipulative, raising concerns about the UN’s intentions for ensuring “information integrity.”
In another contentious statement, the report suggests that hate speech is a precursor to severe crimes, including genocide.
While this is often historically true, critics argue that the worst instances predate the internet, and such hate speech usually originates from the government or powerful groups whose censorship measures would not check.
These critics deem it demagogic to associate skepticism about man-made climate change or mRNA vaccination efficacy with genocide.
Guterres’ plan draws inspiration from the European Union’s Digital Services Act and its voluntary code of conduct for internet platforms.
He announced that the UN would engage in wide-ranging consultations with stakeholders to develop a UN code of conduct, including enforcement mechanisms.
The Secretary-General also intends to establish a dedicated office to counter online disinformation or hate speech.
This office, he stated, will use expert observations and analysis to develop communication strategies to prevent or respond quickly to threats.
Critics have raised concerns that this initiative resembles a large-scale project to monitor and manipulate public opinion.