The Battle Against Disinformation and Its Impact on Truth

The evolution of “disinformation” as a concept traces its roots back to Soviet Russia, where the term “dezinformatsiya” described false information designed to undermine public trust in the Communist Party. Originally a Cold War concept, the term gained widespread traction in America only after the 2016 presidential election, when Donald Trump’s unexpected victory over Hillary Clinton prompted a search for explanations.

Reports of Russian interference in the election helped establish “disinformation” as a dominant narrative in American political discourse. What began as a seemingly legitimate concern about foreign interference quickly expanded to include domestic political opponents and viewpoints that challenged progressive orthodoxy.

The concept’s expansion created an entire industry of “disinformation experts” at universities, non-profit organizations, and within tech companies. These experts wielded significant influence over what information could circulate on major social media platforms. Their scope continuously broadened—from targeting Russian election interference to suppressing alternative theories about COVID-19’s origins, questioning vaccine efficacy, or expressing traditional views on gender.

This framework spawned increasingly complex terminology. “Misinformation” referred to unknowingly false information, while “misleading information” described content that might guide people toward incorrect conclusions. Perhaps most troubling was the emergence of “malinformation”—factually accurate information deemed harmful if shared publicly, such as true accounts of vaccine side effects that might discourage vaccination.

Katherine Maher, now CEO of National Public Radio, articulated this shift when she stated in 2021: “Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.”

The disinformation framework inherently identified enemies—not foreign adversaries as in the Soviet model, but fellow citizens with opposing political views. This approach effectively recast millions of Americans as dangerous threats, further polarizing an already divided nation.

While direct government censorship would violate the First Amendment, evidence suggests significant pressure from public officials on tech platforms. Mark Zuckerberg has acknowledged receiving pressure from the Biden administration regarding COVID content and FBI warnings about the Hunter Biden laptop story, which Meta subsequently suppressed—a decision Zuckerberg now says he regrets.

The January 6, 2021, Capitol riot accelerated these efforts. Major platforms “deplatformed” then-President Trump and thousands of his supporters. As revealed in the “Twitter Files” following Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform, sophisticated systems had been developed to monitor millions of posts daily with input from government-approved experts.

Ironically, those fighting “disinformation” sometimes engaged in spreading it themselves. The Hunter Biden laptop story represents perhaps the clearest example—a legitimate news report that was systematically suppressed as “Russian disinformation” by a coordinated effort involving media outlets, intelligence officials, and social media platforms, despite being factually accurate.

The war on disinformation has largely failed on its own terms. Attempts to suppress COVID “misinformation” eroded public trust in health authorities. Censorship of conservative viewpoints on gender issues intensified opposition to progressive policies. And the prolonged battle against “Trumpist disinformation” culminated in Trump’s strongest electoral performance in 2024.

Looking forward, several trends appear likely. The fact-checking and anti-disinformation industry will likely be dismantled or transformed as platforms cut ties and political pressure shifts. However, this may risk a McCarthyist backlash against individuals previously involved in content moderation.

Meanwhile, both government and corporate attempts to regulate digital speech will likely increase, especially outside the United States where First Amendment protections don’t apply. Platform owners like Zuckerberg and Musk will continue wielding significant influence over what speech is permitted.

Public response to increasing polarization has included “news avoidance” and reduced engagement on social platforms—a natural immune response that protects individuals but potentially harms democratic discourse by leaving only the most extreme voices in the conversation.

Finally, digital spaces are increasingly balkanizing along political, national, and demographic lines—from the split between Bluesky and Twitter/X to divergent regulatory approaches in Europe and America.

For now, media literacy remains the most viable approach for addressing digital misinformation without compromising democratic principles. As we enter the second decade of widespread social media usage, greater public awareness of online manipulation may be our strongest defense against the harmful effects of false information.