The UN’s Disinformation Workshop: A Silent Step Towards Orwell’s “1984,” By James Reed

On June 12, 2025, the United Nations is holding an "Expert Workshop" on disinformation. It's to be a low-key event, without much fanfare or public debate. But for many of us, this quiet gathering represents more than just another bureaucratic meeting. It's seen as a subtle yet significant step in a long-term plan to reshape what we can say, what we're allowed to believe, and ultimately, who controls the flow of information. The concern? That these efforts, however well-intentioned, could pave the way for a society eerily reminiscent of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, where technocratic control reigns supreme.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is indeed hosting a workshop to explore how to counter the negative impact of disinformation while supposedly safeguarding human rights. The stated goals are to review methods of disinformation, promote tools to counter it, and ultimately contribute to a report for the Human Rights Council. They will talk about media literacy, transparency, and upholding human rights standards.

Yet, a chill runs down the spine of free speech advocates. The very idea of an international body defining and combating "disinformation" raises fundamental questions. Who decides what constitutes disinformation? What metrics are used? And perhaps most critically, what happens to information or opinions that, while perhaps unpopular or even challenging, are not strictly "false" but inconvenient for those in power?

This concern isn't paranoid; it's rooted in history and a deep understanding of how power operates. When the definition of truth becomes centralised, and when the means to suppress dissenting views are provided to authorities, the stage is set for an environment where independent thought is stifled. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Ministry of Truth didn't just spread lies; it actively rewrote history and controlled language to ensure absolute ideological conformity. The fear is that empowering a global body to arbitrate truth opens a Pandora's Box of potential overreach. This could lead to a technocratic governance where a powerful few, armed with algorithms and regulatory frameworks, silently shape public discourse: globalised thought police.

In stark contrast to this potential slide towards control, the liberal tradition, eloquently articulated by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, offers a powerful counter-argument. Mill's vision is one where the uninhibited marketplace of ideas reigns supreme. For Mill, the best way to arrive at truth, and to foster a truly robust society, is through open, often messy, and sometimes uncomfortable debate.

Mill's core arguments for radical free speech are as relevant today as they were in the 19th century:

The Fallibility of Human Judgment: Mill argued that no single individual or group possesses absolute truth. To silence an opinion, even one we believe to be utterly false, is to assume our own infallibility. We might be wrong, or the silenced opinion might contain a vital "portion of truth" that, when debated, leads to a more complete understanding.

The Vigour of Truth: Even if an opinion is entirely true, Mill contended that it becomes a "dead dogma" if not vigorously debated and challenged. When truth is not contested, it's held as a prejudice rather than a conviction, lacking genuine understanding and conviction.

The "Conversation of Humanity": For Mill, truth emerges from the "collision of adverse opinions." It's in the ongoing dialogue, the back-and-forth, the presenting of evidence and counter-arguments, that ideas are refined, errors are corrected, and societal progress is made. This "conversation" is not always polite or comfortable, but it is essential.

Applying Mill's philosophy to the modern challenge of disinformation means choosing more free speech, not less. Instead of censorship or top-down mandates, the solution lies in:

Robust Counter-Arguments: The best way to combat falsehoods is to expose them to the light of day with compelling evidence and reasoned arguments.

Critical Thinking and Media Literacy: Empowering individuals with the skills to discern, analyse, and critically evaluate information is far more effective than shielding them from it.

Transparency and Accountability: Holding technology platforms accountable for their algorithms and moderation practices, ensuring they are transparent and not politically biased, is crucial.

Independent Fact-Checking: Supporting diverse, non-governmental fact-checking organisations allows for the independent verification of claims without state interference.

The UN's workshop, while seemingly benign, serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing tension between security and liberty. As the world grapples with the complexities of information in the digital age, we face a critical choice. Do we lean into centralised control, risking a slide towards a 1984 society where experts and algorithms dictate acceptable thought? Or do we embrace the liberal ideal, trusting in the power of open debate, critical thinking, and the collective wisdom of humanity to sort through the noise?

The stakes are high. The freedom to speak, to challenge, and to debate, however uncomfortable, is not a luxury; it is the bedrock of a truly free and flourishing society. We should be wary of any steps, no matter how quiet, that threaten to erode this fundamental principle.

https://nationfirst.substack.com/p/the-un-wants-to-silence-you

"While the world's distracted, the real power plays happen in silence.

On June 12, the United Nations will hold a low-profile "Expert Workshop" on disinformation. No fanfare, no headlines, no public debate. Just another quiet step in a years-long plan to control what you can say and what you're allowed to believe.