The Disinformation Project: The end of an error

From the confines of their Ivory Metaverse, the Disinformation Project thought they were cutting edge.

But to many New Zealanders they were, simply, a clown show.

Earlier this month the Disinformation Project (DP) announced they were closing. Their small team is moving on “to new things.”

Chatter on social media say it’s just a rebranding, with its work continuing under different guises and funding to it diverted through alternative channels.

The DP will be remembered by many as a destructive influence on our society, responsible for unfounded and defamatory attacks on minorities (such as the unvaccinated) and government opponents, as well as being a key player in the shaping of divisive narratives designed to usher in far-reaching social changes that were neither necessary nor asked for by the electorate.

Much has been written and said about the DP in recent days, but in this article I want to focus on the three main issues I had with it, although there were many others.

1. Shonky methodology and unreliable data

The DP website describes its methodology as follows:

“Our research methodology used mixed-methods and combined open-source and quantitative data from a range of social media platforms. This included:

• Computational analysis of very large content and commentary collections.
• Data visualisation, virality and cross-pollination patterns.
• Super-spreader signatures.
• Semantic study.
• Qualitative analysis data, including discourse shifts over time.”

They explained the methodology further in the introduction to its Working Paper ‘Mis and disinformation in Aotearoa New Zealand from 17 August to 5 November 2021,’ as:

“a novel mixed methods approach which combines a range of standard open-source quantitative reporting from social media, media platforms or sources with a rich text and artefact based narrative analysis of longform qualitative data…

“Our novel approach embraces quantitative measures based on the volume, vectors and velocity of inaccurate content, amplification of mis- and disinformation by groups and individuals, tracking of narratives across online and offline contexts and key distribution signatures. Furthermore, and significantly, harmful content is also qualitatively analysed through gendered, country-specific, and other contextual frames.”

This is all okay if you want to have a ‘big picture view’ – like what’s trending on Amazon, but it’s only marginally useful when trying to draw policy conclusions or seeking to understand complex social issues.

This is why, very early on, DP made the mistake of taking the giant imaginative leap from alleged online mis/disinformation about COVID-19 jabs to “far right” ideology. It also explains other ludicrous conclusions they came to, epitomised in Kate Hannah’s now infamous “step back” warning if you see a Caucasian toddler with braided hair.

Even a blind man could see about half the parliament protest crowd were Maori or Islanders. Indeed, I am told that a show of hands by a large group of protesters confirmed about 40% had voted for either Labour or the Greens.

Even today they are still pushing this “far right” nonsense:

“In 2024, it’s clear that the disinformation networks established or expanded during the pandemic are deeply connected to far-right, neo-Nazi, and accelerationist networks and actors – both domestic and foreign.”

We don’t have a far-right problem in New Zealand. The problem we have is that kiwis from all walks of life are getting increasingly angrier at politicians, academics, and the legacy media who lie to us and want to interfere in our lives and beliefs.

When you look deeper into the DP’s claims of “novel methodology” it basically amounts to this: take social media meta data, combine it with words and catchphrases they have scraped from stalking online chat rooms, then run it through a computer programme to come up with some colourful diagrams and buzzwords.

This type of computer modelling as the basis for “research” (I call it the ‘Ivory Metaverse’) is fraught with problems, as has been pointed out by, for example, Professor Ian Plimer in the field of climate change, where he says that computer models have been “proven wrong time and time again.”

The problem, as Plimer points out, is that you can get a computational model to produce any outcome you want. That’s not science or research. It also lacks transparency as, despite describing their methodology in academic ‘gobbledegook’, no one knows exactly how they came up with their wild claims. The legacy media never challenged them on this (which is their job), but instead gave them a free rein to say anything.

Then there is the issue of data reliability. When you are dealing with anonymous online chatrooms and groups, and even standard social media accounts you are not operating in the real world.

I bet half of the so-called “violent white supremacist” or “far right” accounts they were tracking were fake – run by bots, trojans, or trolls, as well as government agents from here and overseas (particularly the other 5-Eyes partners) posing as violent racists to deliberately stir up trouble.

In tech-speak, the DP’s research was a classic case of “Garbage in, garbage out”.

Their data was unreliable, their methodology was shonky. It was inevitable their conclusions would be way off target.

But that does not explain how or why the legacy media gave these people so much air time and credence. This fact alone shows you how incompetent the New Zealand fake news legacy media is, and explains in part why kiwis are abandoning them in droves.

2. Jealousy

I could not help but think at times that the targeting of Claire Deeks, Libby Jonson and Alia Bland of Voices For Freedom, and Chantelle Baker, was driven by jealousy.

What these women have achieved in their respective fields, against the odds, is remarkable.

To understand this you have to go back to 2021-22 when the Labour government and legacy media campaign to marginalise and intimidate the unvaccinated minority was in full swing. VFF and Baker were highly prominent among those targeted. Significant government and legacy media resources were allocated to projects whose sole purpose was to destroy their reputations and lives. But these women never wavered or buckled, and in the process endeared themselves to many.

This success, and courage, triggered their opponents, whose attacks became more nasty, defamatory, obsessive, and bizarre (see eg. ‘Fire & Fury‘). The source of this desperation or “cattiness”, some would call it, is jealousy, pure and simple.

3. ‘Experts’ and narrative building

The legacy media are finding out now that parroting the DP’s misinformation is coming back to haunt them. It has cost them money in terms of legal costs, and it has cost them readers and viewers. It is a contributing factor to the public’s decline in trust in the media.

People are sick and tired of them trotting out ‘experts’ to explain everything from online disinformation, to climate change, to how to pick your nose properly. Just report the facts on actual events, and if you quote an expert regarding a highly contentious issue, then also quote an opposing one so the public gets the full picture. The media are supposed to provide balance, but too often these “expert views” are one-sided and are obviously planted in articles or broadcasts – a propaganda technique the public is becoming increasingly aware of.

The demise of the DP has been unceremonious, but it is celebrated by many. The once all-powerful Ardern propaganda machine is now a smoldering heap of trash, defeated by the power of truth, and a fitting testament to the resilience of its many victims.