Are You Prepared For The "Infodemic"?

in #coronavirus3 months ago

by James Corbett
corbettreport.com
April 18, 2020

It's silent. It's deadly. It's spreading all around the globe. And, if you're not careful, it'll get you next!

The viral pandemic? No, silly! The viral infodemic.

Haven't you heard? There's a tsunami of fake news that's coming to get you! And if you plebs don't behave properly then your rulers are just going to have to shut down the internet for your own good.

If you haven't heard the term "infodemic" yet, then lucky you. But trust me, you're going to be hearing about this idea ad nauseum in the coming months, so you better get prepared.

So what is an infodemic, exactly? Good question. Let's turn to everybody's favorite global health agency, the World Health Organization, for that answer, shall we?

On February 2nd they released a situation report on the novel coronavirus outbreak that had a section on "Managing the 2019-nCoV ‘infodemic’." This report helpfully explains that an infodemic is "an over-abundance of information – some accurate and some not – that makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it."

Oh, no! Too much information? Say it ain't so! If only someone can save us from this terrible scourge of having to use our own brains and apply a little discernment to the information we encounter!

Don't worry too much, though. The good folks at the WHO have a plan for dealing with such an "over-abundance" of information:

"Due to the high demand for timely and trustworthy information about 2019-nCoV, WHO technical risk communication and social media teams have been working closely to track and respond to myths and rumours. Through its headquarters in Geneva, its six regional offices and its partners, the Organization is working 24 hours a day to identify the most prevalent rumours that can potentially harm the public’s health, such as false prevention measures or cures. These myths are then refuted with evidence-based information. WHO is making public health information and advice on the 2019-nCoV, including myth busters, available on its social media channels."

OK, everybody, it looks like the WHO has everything under control here. Be sure to follow them on Weibo, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Pinterest and turn off your critical thinking switch. After all, they'll sort out the good info from the bad info for you! No thinking required.

Well, that solves that. I guess we can all go back to enjoying our self-isolation in peace, right?

If only.

No, of course we have not seen the end of this hand-wringing over the "flood" of mis- and disinformation on the internet. Nor have we seen the last of the meddling globalist busybodies who are desperately seeking to reestablish the monopoly on information that they enjoyed in the old dinosaur media paradigm of TV, radio and print.

In fact, this is just the beginning of what is shaping up to be the largest battle in the history of the infowar. Perhaps the deciding battle.

So, what exactly is the gambit here? As with everything else about the corona crisis, we can get a better understanding of where things are heading by consulting the pandemic blueprint: Event 201.

As everyone knows by now, Event 201 was a tabletop exercise simulating a global pandemic that was held in New York last October. Hosted by the Center for Health Security in cooperation with the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Event 201 simulated "a series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult, true-to-life dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical, but scientifically plausible, pandemic." Now, it's important to note that Event 201's "hypothetical" pandemic was caused by the sudden outbreak of a novel coronavirus that totally wasn't in any way related to the sudden outbreak of a novel coronavirus that was happening at the exact same time as the simulation, you crazy conspiracy theorist, you! (What, the Center for Health Security's blanket denial that their simulation of a novel coronavirus pandemic was related in any way to the simultaneous novel coronavirus pandemic? Fine, here's a FactCheck.org debunk for you! Take that, you tinfoil wingnut!)

For those who haven't checked out the entire Event 201 playlist yet . . . why not? It seems rather relevant to the events we're living through right now, and it featured many of the same players who are directing the response to the real-life (but totally unrelated!) novel coronavirus pandemic, like Chinese Center for Disease Creation and Propaganda Director-General George Gao, US Centers for Disease Creation and Propaganda Deputy Director Stephen Redd and Bill & Melinda GatesofHell Foundation President Christopher Elias.

The penultimate session of the exercise was entitled "Information Dissemination Discussion" and centered on the problem of dealing with the disinformation and misinformation spreading in the wake of the (totally hypothetical!) novel coronavirus pandemic. After watching a literal fake news segment detailing how Twitter and Facebook have identified a "disturbing number" (what number is that, exactly?) of accounts "dedicated to spreading disinformation about the outbreak," the participants discuss how to combat the horror of people saying things they don't approve of online. In brief, their discussion centers on the following points:

  • Some of those evil authoritarian regimes (read: US State Department enemies) are going to respond by shutting down the internet (but we would never do that!).
  • Some of those evil enemy governments (read: Russia) are going to spread misinformation about the pandemic on social media in order to undermine democracy (or something).
  • We good guys (read: America and its vassals) need to combat the misinformation not with blanket internet shutdowns, but by working with the social media giants to "elevate authoritative voices" (read: us) and getting rid of those misinfo trolls and disinfo bots (read: everyone who disagrees with us).
  • We good guys also need to leverage trusted voices in the community to spread our message for us.

Several of the speakers reference the "Edelman Trust Barometer," which they use to determine who is considered "trustworthy" and thus who can help propagate their propaganda most effectively. Apparently, this barometer tells these participants that people find the CEOs of large companies quite trustworthy (what planet are these people living on?) and thus prime candidates to be courted by "business leadership organizations" that can presumably be relied upon to toe the WHO line on information about the pandemic.

So how much of this is playing out in reality?

Government shutdowns and internet blockages over pandemic "misinformation"? Check.

Accusations that those dastardly Russian bots are waging disinformation campaigns around this pandemic? Check.

Social media giants working to elevate authoritative voices and purge dissenting voices from their platforms? Check.

Leveraging "trusted" voices to spread the WHO party line? Well, funny you should mention that. In fact, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has just released a creepy video telling us exactly where to place our trust. (Spoiler: Vaccines. He wants us to trust in vaccines.) He has also announced the creation of "a new United Nations Communications Response initiative to flood the Internet with facts and science while countering the growing scourge of misinformation."

The world eagerly awaits the word of the UN communications response team on what information to trust and what to distrust, I'm sure.

I jest, of course, but I think we all know where this "infodemic" narrative is going, and it is not good news for independent journalists like myself who do not agree with the WHO or its big pharma buddies on the solutions to the covid "crisis" (or even the nature of that crisis itself). No, you can bet your bottom dollar that outlets like The Corbett Report are exactly what the Event 201 planners had in mind when discussing their purge of dissenting voices online.

Lest there be any doubt where this is heading, we merely have to look at how the "infodemic" contagion is infecting "lawmakers" all around the world. You could start with pronouncements from governments around the world that they are going to be working to stem the flow of misinformation online by various draconian methods, from Russia to Cambodia to Thailand to Egypt to Azerbaijan and many other countries.

Of course, when they do it it's horrible thuggish authoritarian censorship. When the good guys do it, like the British government announced last month. . . well, that's just a prudent response to dangerous conspiracy theorists and foreign disinfo bots.

Take British MP Damian Collins, for example. In addition to calling for laws to punish the spread of "dangerous misinformation" about the pandemic, he has also set up Infotagion.com. Intended as a "fact-checking" site, Infotagion doesn't just rate the veracity of claims that "the US Covid-19 lockdown is an anti-Trump plot" or that "Covid-19 is a big pharma conspiracy" but, in an even greater insult to its audience's intelligence, tells them whether they should or should not share such claims on social media. (You know, in case the plebs are too dumb to get that rating something "false" means that you shouldn't pass it on.)

Inspired by Collins—and, no doubt, admiring the sheer audacity behind the idea of locking people up for sharing information that has not been approved by the Ministry of Truth—Canada's Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc has admitted that the Canadian government, too, is "considering introducing legislation to make it an offense to knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people."

Yes, in case you haven't cottoned on yet, "infodemic" is a euphemism for "fake news." And we all know that "fake news" is just the term that government officials and their MSM mockingbird repeaters use to describe independent online journalism. The current pandemic pandemonium provides the purveyors of official, government-approved fake news the perfect opportunity to remove independent voices from the internet. You better believe they're going to use it.

So watch out for the infodemic. If you're not careful, the powers-that-shouldn't-be are going to take care of this "problem" of the "abundance of information" by making sure you only ever get your information from approved sources.

This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter. To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter, please sign up to become a member of the website.

Sort:  

I didn't know you were on Steem. I follow your work regularly, and have been sharing it with others.

I will support you here on Steem. Thank you for making a difference for the better.

You are right. Thanks for keeping us aware.

I absolutely love your content James! Thanks for opening doors to those that have been "quarantined" for years. 😉💙

James lost the plot. No longer a good source of info. And all his past stuff is now in question because of it. Shameful.

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

James is a shining example of someone who sources his information, and does an excellent job presenting it.

This comment above is a shining example of zero substance accusations that are so prevalent today, imho. WHY is he no longer a good source of info... .like wtf?

I've commented on idk how many of @drutter's posts, as well as supported him in the past with upvotes. I don't think he's ever answered me lol. I hope the man is doing good regardless :)

I didn't know I'd missed replying to any of your questions! Maybe there's a way to run a check on all posts I've made that have un-replied-to comments by you? That would be handy. Until then, do you remember any of your questions that might still need a response?

I've done several articles and a 30 minute video about issues with other alternative media personalities, in the past few months. After 12 years of ignoring everybody else, I finally decided it was time to call out the ones I see as intellectually dishonest. Dan Dicks, Jeff Berwick, Josh Sigurtson, and unfortunately, James Corbett.

As for my comment above not containing any substance, that may be true. That also doesn't make it incorrect, nor does it make it invalid, nor does it mean I should be harassed for it. We can all make any comment we like, even if it contains nothing to back it up. I've written James dozens of comments in the past few weeks, letting him know how I feel. I don't know if he'll ever see any, but that's okay too. It's important to me to air my opinion even if others don't share it, and assume it to be baseless. That's on them.

As for my comment above not containing any substance, that may be true. That also doesn't make it incorrect, nor does it make it invalid, nor does it mean I should be harassed for it.

Apologies if I offended or made you feel harassed. I could have been a little nicer about it.

I finally decided it was time to call out the ones I see as intellectually dishonest. Dan Dicks, Jeff Berwick, Josh Sigurtson, and unfortunately, James Corbett.

I'm curious to know why you feel this way about James. What mistake did this man make for you to call him dishonest? Genuinely would like to know, because I feel his work is well researched and well presented. (feel free to drop me a link if you have some content on it)

It's important to me to air my opinion even if others don't share it, and assume it to be baseless. That's on

You're intellectual enough to know what is baseless. Saying you think someone is dishonest without providing a reason is baseless no?
I am very pro free speech @drutter, and definitely feel you have a right to speak your mind.
I think it's logical for people to ask you explain defamation of character towards others.

As for the comments, I'm not sure. Perhaps I am wrong. There was a post I thought I commented on, but I didn't, so I humbly admit that I made a mistake there.

I like your content, and one of your posts really spoke to me, to the point of motivating me to write a post:
Oct 30, 2019 and I promoted your content with a tag.
https://steempeak.com/esteem/@futuremind/what-we-have-here-is-a-failure-to-communicate

Sorry I was an asshole there.

Hey, nah you weren't an asshole, no worries there. I tend to say what I mean, and like it when others do the same. You got your point across : )

Regarding missed comments and replies in the past, it could have happened. One thing people often do (and I'm guilty of this) is replying to a response, and then hoping the original commenter will notice. The platforms I use to view the blockchain don't notify me of replies to replies to my comments - just actual replies. So I may have missed something you said at some point, it definitely happens!

What I meant by baseless is without base (supporting fundamentals). What I say isn't baseless just because I didn't spell out my criticism in full. Like I said earlier, I've made dozens such comments to James, on various platforms. My hope is he'll see at least one. He may not reply, but I'd like at least to be heard. Sometimes I don't bother going into the full writeup, explaining my criticisms to 3rd parties who may read it. Again, it's not baseless just because it isn't referenced and backed up every time I say it. Maybe it's splitting hairs a bit, but I think you meant "unsupported" rather than "baseless". If I had said "hey everybody, join me in attacking James", without providing any background, I can imagine people being annoyed at me. But really, I was just expressing that I think he has lost the plot, and fallen into some intellectual dishonesty recently.

I may not be flawless either, but if I start lying (or omitting info that doesn't agree with my stance) I hope someone lets me know. To me, that's the fastest way AWAY from the truth. If I can't trust myself to be honest with myself, I'm sunk. So when I catch glimpses of others (and I'm watching constantly... it's in my nature even if I don't intend to) not being perfectly honest, I tend to give up on them completely. I can't seem to stomach anyone who isn't flawless, and it sucks, because there isn't anyone. James is one of the last guys I trusted. I've recommended him to literally thousands of people over the years. His earlier works (and some newer stuff) is amazingly good. He has been prolific for years. And I always thought of him as beyond reproach.

Maybe I should just avoid James, if he bothers me, right? But he and I are in the same circles, and he's the big dog in that circle, so I run into him everywhere. And everybody who knows me, also knows him (but not vice versa). And most are like I was, until recently - totally admiring him and letting my guard down around him, taking everything he says as gospel (something I wouldn't do with just anybody), and more. I guess I feel like I got tricked, and that's a shitty feeling for me. Maybe I'm trying to fix the state of the alternative media by pointing out a problem. Maybe I'm trying to jolt James into correcting his errors. Maybe I'm just venting my frustrations and sadness. I'm not entirely sure, and I'll do more self-reflection on it.

And maybe I should stop venting in the form of comments. Or if I do, I'll try to support what I say, every time.

Have a good weekend.

Loading...

I know this is an old thread but I am really curious as to why you would say ''James lost the plot. No longer a good source of info.''
If that is in fact true, I would deeply appreciate understanding how you drew that conclusion.
I agree that sometimes it is better for us to just to vent our frustration. Its way better than having an internal melt down : )

Right now I am in agreement with James, having said I may just be suffering from confirmation bias lol if so I would like to know

I don't have any insider information, or anything I can link you to, or any short explanation other than what I've offered already.

I'm not trying to convince you what to think, or even ask you to question anything. I'm sorry to have bothered you.

Edited to add I think almost all his older material is incredibly well done and still useful.

Thanks for the reply

As for my comment above not containing any substance, that may be true. That also doesn't make it incorrect [the fallacy fallacy], nor does it make it invalid...

It does however make it an UNSOUND claim.

It also makes it a naked appeal to ignorance.

If you have a logically sound objection, please present it as such.

Expecting people to accept your bald assertions based on your "reputation" is pretty hypocritical if you refuse to accept the bald assertions of others based on their "reputation".

It does however make it an UNSOUND claim."

Haha, no it doesn't.

"If you have a logically sound objection, please present it as such."

Make me.

"Expecting people to accept your..."

I'm not expecting or assuming anything - you are.

Any claim that is presented without proper logical structure and explicit axioms is unsound.

No, although it may be unsound. Or it may not. Your assumptive opinion is that my statement isn't sound.

Also, the above is not necessarily a claim - a statement presented as a true fact. If you want "In my opinion..." added to the beginning of my statement, sure, you can assume it's there. It's de facto there at the beginning of most of my comments online. If I had said "and that's a fact" or "I want everybody to know" or "here's the truth", that would be a claim, and then yes, it may be unsound. Or not.

In my opinion.