The idea that unsupervised media consumption leads voters to mass political illusion is not exactly a ringing endorsement of democracy. Yet the ‘misinformation’ theory of America’s political woes has gradually taken hold in Silicon Valley, where powerful internet companies have taken an increasingly active role in cleaning up or suppressing certain discourse. deemed (often accurately, sometimes not) to be false or misleading. The Department of Homeland Security even now uses the acronym “MDM” (mis-dis-and mis-information) to describe a “terrorist threat to the American homeland.”

Musk’s promise to reverse Twitter’s course toward stricter moderation doesn’t just shake the company – it repudiates one of the most influential theories in media and society in recent years and sends shockwaves through the institutions erected to promote it. The door is open to new thinking about self-government and the information revolution.

The best account of the rise of the disinformation field appeared in a 2021 essay for Harper’s by Joseph Bernstein. The great disinfo, Bernstein wrote, “emerged during the Trump years at the intersection of media, academia, and political research.” He tries to identify the lies online and urges to return “the power to disseminate knowledge to a set of ‘objective’ gatekeepers.”

Big Disinfo finds its power base, Bernstein observed, in “the highest echelons of the American political center” – in institutions such as the Aspen Institute’s Information Disorders Commission, the Atlantic Council and the Council on Foreign Relations. Barack Obama seems to have made it the flagship cause of his post-presidency. On the same day Musk pitched his acquisition funding to Twitter, Obama gave a keynote address on the threat to democracy from unregulated political expression at Stanford University’s Cyber ​​Policy Center, another center from BigDisinfo.

The disinformation field’s alphabet soup of academic and non-profit institutions has enjoyed a formidable half-decade, raising huge sums, hosting conferences, and tirelessly advocating for tighter restrictions on expression online. The premise that curbing Americans’ false beliefs can dampen populism and recreate the liberal center is certainly seductive.

But Obama’s speech could be the pinnacle of Big Disinfo. The funding and energy of the movement hinges on a sense of momentum – that the reach of centre-left controls on online discourse could be extended to new areas, such as (more recently) climate change. Musk’s acquisition of Twitter could temporarily send the disinformation lobby into overdrive. But if it undertakes to resist the slide towards a closed and ideologically fragmented Web for a long time, the lobby could lose influence, resources and prestige.

As well he should. Big Disinfo’s American politics theory is upside down. There is no doubt that the new instant communication platforms have created what media analyst Martin Gurri calls a “crisis of authority”. But the loss of a “shared set of facts” in the United States that Obama lamented in his speech did not occur primarily among voters less engaged and sensitive to misinformation. Instead, it is more pronounced in highly educated and knowledgeable people.

A comprehensive 2017 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that “best-informed individuals are more likely to express beliefs consistent with their religious or political identity for issues that have polarized in this direction.” . For example, conservatives who have the best knowledge of science are the least concerned about climate change, while liberals who have the best knowledge of science are the most concerned. Access to Well information, as much as bad information, can alienate people in a polarized system.

This idea goes back decades. A 1954 study from the University of Chicago Press on voting habits observed that voters who “read and listen more” are “less open to persuasion.” Meanwhile, less engaged voters (today we might call them normies) likely “helped hold the system together and soften the blow of disagreements, adjustments and changes.” Far from undermining democracy, these voters, who may well have more false beliefs about politics, are a moderating counterweight to the elites.

There are of course many wrinkles here – different definitions of disinformation and political engagement and different ways to reduce the American electorate. But it’s safe to say that the rote claims pushed by the content moderation complex are overdue for scrutiny. The lobby presents itself as a bulwark against authoritarianism by keeping figures like Donald Trump out of line – but if voters can be so easily manipulated by exposure to a political figure’s false claims, then why does the democratic system deserve- Was there such a fierce defense in the first place?

From Obama’s election to the Arab Spring, social media has often been celebrated as perfectionists of democratic ideals. Since Brexit and the election of Trump, this euphoria has turned into reactionary panic. Musk’s purchase of Twitter could be another turning point in the rapid history of democracy and technology. Hopefully this time America can put the relationship on a firmer footing.