I mean to be fair- many of us have been worried about these things for at least 5-10 years. I think it’s funny that he has to gain points by pointing out he saw “right wing extremism” causing a problem with free speech first- before pointing out that most of this is coming from the educated, elite, liberals. . No- let’s drop all the ideological/ political labels. I really don’t care what side you think you’re on. This is insane. That IQ intelligent people continue to not see it or propagate it is insane. And despite so many other smart people saying it (but being on the wrong side of whatever people want to hear) … wake up. Read about how many times this has happened and didn’t go well.
The obsession over “disinformation” for the last decade is so odd and, yes, Orwellian. Until quite recently the term “disinformation” was rarely used, and it typically was applied to foreign intelligence operations. Now the term is used constantly by people who seem to believe it is ubiquitous and is a major cause for why other people have differing views.
It is hard for me to see it as anything other than an attempt to rationalize censorship by people who should be smart enough to know better.
I never claimed it was hard or that I did not understand the definition.
So you do really belief those who claim “disinformation” can read the minds of others? Those who claim widespread disinformation never actually give evidence that the purveyor knows that the claim is not true. They just assume it over and over again.
Your definition only makes sense in the real world if you assume that another person knows whether the purveyor of information knows that their statement is not true. When it is assumed to be the norm of what your political opponents are saying, then it is clearly just a rationalization for censorship or at least for ignoring alternate opinions.
To the best of my knowledge, few people accuse someone that they agree with as disseminating “disinformation”. They only accuse those they disagree with. That can only be true if a person thinks that their side always tells the truth and the other side lies.
Very convenient… and, yes, an excuse for censorship.
Of course we can't 'read minds'. But 1, it's not always necessary to -- written/oral evidence for the purposeful promotion of a lie may exist. And 2, even if it doesn't how do you imagine the legal system, including libel laws, operates in the absence of telapathic powers? And do you think propaganda doesn't really exist?
Regarding #1) very few allegations of disinformation are actually supported by “written/oral evidence for the purposeful promotion of a lie” and yet the allegation of “disinformation” is widespread. It is particularly important that those who allege disinformation do not even try to come up with that evidence., most likely because they do not care whether the evidence exists.
Regarding #2) Of course propaganda exists, but that is a different concept. That is specifically by the government against its own people. The legal system has nothing to do with determining disinformation vs misinformation vs fact vs difference of opinion. Libel is a different concept and its standard varies greatly by judicial system. In many, including the USA, libel is very difficult to prove exactly for the reasons that I outline above.
Glad that you acknowledge that we cannnot read minds. This means that in typical political discourse, it is extremely difficult to differentiate between disinformation, misinformation, and a difference of opinion.
Can you give me an example of an individual or group who you largely agree with disseminating disinformation?
I already agreed with you that disinformation (false propaganda) is a stronger label than misinformation (mistake) and has to be more carefully applied. There may or may not be 'very few' instances of disinformation where physical or verbal evidence exists, but certainly some high profile cases of it do exist. The Fox news
And no, propaganda is not just something used against a country's own people.
Intent is a very important concept in the law in the US and elsewhere. It's hard to prove. But it's not ignored or treated as an insuperable obstacle to conviction that someone was lying.
You're asking or an 'example of someone I agree with disseminating disinformation'? I assume your point is that disinformation is only ever practiced by the 'other side'. No, I don't believe that. I vote Democrat but I certainly don't hold them blameless of the practice; I've lived through every administration since the 1960s. I believe there's enough evidence, for example, to say it was disinformation, not simply misinformation, coming from the White House about Biden's mental acuity.
I should also add that disinformation can be employed by people who say they 'mean well'. They know they're spreading untruths, but it's for 'a good cause'. To name a distant enough example that it won't provoke partisan fury, one could point to propaganda that the US dumped into Germany (or broadcast to Germany) during WWII. The 'noble lie' concept exists for a reason. Many have used it as their excuse. But it's a very, very slipperly slope, and it can easily slide into hypocracy. Or at the very least in nowadays gotcha culture, 'really bad optics'.
What, if anything counts as disinformation, to you? Do you allow for its existence contra misinformation?
I believe the term “disinformation” only adds value to the political discourse if it is applied to spycraft, as was its use until quite recently.
The traditional word “lie” suffices for other deliberately incorrect statements.
“Misinformation” (which is clearly terminology that is meant to sound like intentional disinformation) is a step down from the traditional term “mistaken” or “incorrect.”
Yes, you are correct that propaganda can be used against adversary populace in wartime.
Our current political discourse, particularly as purveyed by the elites in the conference that the author attended, is clearly not in the slightest bit interested in presenting the physical or verbal evidence that you say is necessary to distinguish disinformation. They are clearly trying to morally justify censorship of their opponents in domestic politics. And they do so by crafting terminology that sound like spycraft (which is clearly intentional lies to undermine the adversary).
They are clearly using terminology more applicable to wartime enemies and applying it to domestic political opponents. It is bad for freedom of speech, social stability, and democratic governance. And, yes, it is Orwellian.
Does it not bother you that the “Nearly all of the attendees of the World Expession Forum seemed to agree that “misinformation” was one of the greatest dangers to befall democracy” and they favor increased censorship to deal with the problem?
Do you not see the same people who repeatedly use the word “disinformation” are also the leading advocates for increased censorship?
Can’t you see how the terminology used is key to justifying their censorship campaign?
It's not a matter of how hard determination is (though it's not *always* hard). It's down to intent. If you promote something as true that you believe -- or maybe even *know for a fact* -- is not true, that's different from making an honest mistake. There's a reason there are two different words, and they aren't synonymous. I agree with Michaal Magoon that 'disinformation', a word from spycraft and propaganda, is in much wider use now, and not always correctly. But not always incorrectly (e.g. Fox News's voting machine bullshit, for which they paid dearly). It *can* be something other than 'an attempt to rationalize censorship'.
The bickering in the comments certainly points to any discussion on this topic being a waste of time. People seem mostly interested in being right, and have completely missed the point.
Yascha, maybe they need an article on how to listen, how to consider ideas they dont already agree with, and what openmindedness really means, what that actually looks like, and why its necessary.
It should be no wonder why we're spinning our wheels in the mud of discourse.
A surprising number of people don't seem to appreciate that they are only ever one lost election away from being targeted by the very tools that they created.
YM is making a series of abstract and rather convoluted arguments here, which in the end comes across to me at least as rather meretricious. He quotes JS Mill and then elaborates Mills' key point about the need (in fact, the imperative) for someone to argue the other side.
This is an early version of Popper's insistence on the necessity for seeking refutation of all scientific hypotheses. The ability to survive the test of falsifiability is more critical than the ability to withstand the test of verifiability. No surprise then that Popper was also a fierce supporter of an "open" society, in which free expression was foundational.
I find it curious that Mounk cites cases of left-wing or progressive demands for restriction on free speech. The right-wing expansion of free speech that extends to fabulism, conspiracyism, paranoid ravings, all highly amplified in today's media environment are elided in the post. Protecting the weak from the powerful is unquestionably the main motivation for progressive liberals to ask for a self-imposed censorship. But here's the thing: they impose this standard equally on themselves as on their conservative opponents.
The right-wing on the other hand happily flaunt double standards. Now that they hold the whip hand (in the US, India, Hungary) they continue with their fabrications while cancelling and suppressing liberals.
And Popper did admit that vast tautological statements are a priori unfalsifiable. There is in some way an analog in political philosophy too. Using free expression to acquire power to shut down free expression of the opposing side is when the game ends. Right now, it looks as if that threat is coming from the right.
So, the left is justified in stifling the free speech of others because they do the same to themselves? That’s the weirdest argument I have ever seen. Anybody is free not to say anything they don’t want to say. But how is the left’s self-righteousness a justification for imposing restrictions on other people? It’s the equivalent of a prude censoring erotica because he does not get it himself. I am still waiting to hear how censorship is “protecting the weak” from anything. And who are the weak, anyway? A select group of assumed victims assigned this status by the educated elites? Muslims but not Jews; transwomen but not all women; BIPOC but not poor whites, etc. Mounk is absolutely correct. The main threat to liberal society is coming from the left.
How about not restraining anybody else’s speech? Did such a simple solution not occur to you? Restraining your own speech, on the other hand, may be a good idea, especially if you have little to say.
“Hypocrisy is a homage vice plays to virtue” (attributed to de la Rouchefoucauld and occasionally, to Oscar Wilde). Better be a hypocrite who defends freedom of speech than an ideologue who wants to censor it.
An intriguing analysis—especially the invocation of Popper. But if we’re to guard against the use of free speech as a weapon, shouldn’t we watch for it across the spectrum, not just on the side currently out of favor? There’s a risk in assuming our own camp is immune to the temptations of suppression.
I’m sorry but with exception of your assertion that the left was hypocritical by selectively or sparingly (or not at all) applying censorship to themselves I did not understand the rest of your comment. Perhaps I need to read it again a few more times.
Absolutely phenomenal. I go by a holding the first as in a holding the first amendment. You are completely correct in your observations of censorship Mat Tabi does wonderful reporting in this area as well. Congratulations and good job.
Mr. Mounk is confusing apples with oranges here and is clearly unable to distinguish between the concepts of "freedom of expression" and the commission of criminal offenses—such as defamation and libel. Rather, he believes that in the political sphere, ALL statements people make regarding politicians or other public figures must be accepted without objection and without criminal prosecution. This is a very, very big mistake! It should also be clear to him that there is a huge difference between judging a politician's political behavior—for example, calling him a populist, fascist, or communist—and insulting him purely verbally without any such factual reference—for example, calling him an "idiot"—and thus degrading his human dignity.
Such insults, defamation, and slander are punishable offenses against EVERYONE in all civilized countries. Why shouldn't these rules also apply to politicians? Even though politicians certainly should have a somewhat thicker skin in this regard... But on the contrary: especially in Germany, it is evident that the indiscriminate, irrelevant insults and threats against public officials that Mr. Mounk obviously accepts are leading to fewer and fewer people running for such public office. Such a development certainly cannot correspond to Mr. Mounk's – although indeed a little naive – understanding, can it?
Please also note that the offender insulting this German Vice Chancellor has since been fined by a German court not for this insult (incidentally, the house search was carried out ex officio by the public prosecutor's office BEFORE Minister Habeck filed the criminal complaint), but for displaying unconstitutional symbols (Nazi symbols). Meaning: Mr. Mounk told just "half the truth". The insult proceedings were dismissed as less significant in respect of these crimes. Does Mr. Mounk now believes that freedom of expression also includes the right to display such unconstitutional symbols without punishment in Germany and other countries, even though our society and our criminal law still consider criminalization absolutely necessary today – for very good historical reasons? I hope he will comment on this as well - with the hope he will not simply apply US-American ideas of freedom of expression to all other countries in the world!
Mr. Mounk might be confused, but in such a case, I am as well. Do you believe that the discussions about Lab Leak versus Zoonotic Origin that were shut down by the government were libel/slander, or are those a just grievance?
It's completely absurd to assume that anything here was "prevented by the (German) government." Civilized countries have a clear criminal code according to which purely verbal insults against anyone are prohibited and punishable – which, of course (and in Germany, only in a more severe form) also applies to public officials, so that their important duties for the public do not lead to intimidation. Of course, punishable verbal insults must be strictly separated from permissible – even harsh, but substantively justified – criticisms of the behavior and views of politicians. Not so difficult to understand, is it?
There was just a heated public discourse, also wrong evidence used, e.g. it was clear that the WHO was unable to confirm the lab leak for diplomatic reasons as a UN institution. Some parts of the public attacked scientists that compiled information over lab leaks. Also the media was snarky at times, and unfair treatment of divergent opinions.
Any kind of conspiracy theories and false accusations must be rejected once and for all – which applies both to and against everyone involved here. Because: The problem cited here is currently as follows: To date, there is no definitive evidence for either hypothesis. The majority of genetic and epidemiological data to date tends to support the zoonosis theory, but the lab leak cannot be completely ruled out due to data gaps and the lack of full transparency from China. Period.
Also there is a paradoxon. Science is not about defending established truth, that would be positivism. Still in the lights of public health confusion you have to defend the scientific "truth", while at the same time that would be methodically unscientific when applied to the scientific discourse.
The question of where the virus originated is, of course, not a "scientific" one, but a "factual" one, which (as explained) cannot be conclusively answered, at least not at present. Therefore, please do not contribute to further confusion here!
"One of the important questions concerned its origins. Did Covid originate in the natural world, or was it the accidental consequence of gain-of-function research in a lab with inadequate safety precautions? Answering this question was crucial for us to know how to deal with Covid; to take precautions for how to prevent the next pandemic; and to reflect on the kinds of rules which should in future constrain potentially dangerous forms of biological research. And yet, for the better part of two years, investigative journalists and eminent biologists who were collecting evidence for the so-called lab leak theory were censored by major social media platforms."
This itself is an inaccurate narrative -- I'll say misinformation not disinformation -- though I'm well aware it has become conventional wisdom among the punditocracy. All known pandemics had natural origins; and they do tend to start as zoonoses (from animal to human). Even so, the quite eminent scientists in molecular evolution (like Kristian Andersen) who wrote the famous Nature 'Proximal origins' letter, at first thought it was lab-made, but then, as they reviewed the data, quickly changed their minds -- and *had reported that decision timeline to the public* well before any supposedly damning selection of emails and Slacks were released. Pandemic preparedness had been advocated strongly by scientists well before the COVID pandemic (Trump defunded some of it). Before COVID there had also been robust ongoing debate among scientists about the wisdom of lab-engineering pathogens (something that is a subset of 'gain of function mutation' that everyone seem to think they know everything about now -- and it was under Trump in 2017 that an Obama-era GoF funding moratorium was *ended*). Knowing the natural vs. lab origin (and btw, 'lab-leak' encompasses both zoonosis-in-the-lab, and engineered-in-the-lab, which are two different things) of COVID wasn't necessary for any of that. I'm not sure exactly which 'eminent biologists' are referred to as being suppressed -- perhaps the 'herd immunity' geniuses behind the Barrington Declaration -- published in October 2020 and funded by a libertarian think tank -- like health economist Jay Battacharya, who's now standing by, hands clasped behind his back, as the NIH Trump appointed him to run is defunded? I hope you don't mean then-postdoc Alina Chan, her 'eminence' being a function of her tweets and appearances on Fox. Do you mean scientists who wrongly predicted relatively few COVID deaths (whereas Tony Fauci was called an alarmist for getting the rather larger number right -- but also later castigated for telling people not to worry too much in *Feb 2020* when only a handful of cases had been reported)? Proximal Origins was influential for sure especially in the liberal bubble (though if you *actually read it*, it doesn't rule out lab origin) but lab origin 'censoring' proved kinda *leaky*. Trump and Mike Pompeo were both advocating for lab origin within a month or so of Proximal Origins; by September Chan was piping up with her twitter 'questions and findings' in a Boston magazine profile (yes there are things other than 'social media platforms' out there), we got Barrington in October, then a big New York magazine 'asking questions' piece by novelist Nicholson Baker, who also touted it on MAGA stronghold MSNBC. Facebook's ban on lab leak chatter didn't start until Feb 2021-- and was lifted in May. By June that famous right winger Jon Stewart was mocking the natural origins hypothesis on Colbert's show. OOOH SO MUCH CENSORING. (People's memories being as terrible as they are, especially on this topic, they forget that the 'censoring' on social media was mostly about vaccines, not COVID origin)
It would be nice if more pundits acknowledged that, regardless of which government agencies (without detailing their reasoning) switch from 'low confidence' natural origin to 'low confidence' lab origin or vice versa, zoonosis in the 'wild' (eg wet markets) still has plenty of support among scientists, "with many prominent and unimpeachably pedigreed figures going so far as to call the lab leak theory a dead end and large surveys, though imperfect, showing significant support among virologistsand epidemiologists for a natural origin explanation" as David Wallace-Wells put it ("Why Are So Many People Sure Covid Leaked From a Lab? , NY Times May 21, 2025). Maybe they should talk to/read some of *those* eminent sources?
As for 'policy-wise', you are just loading the question, by stipulating that the 'the subject clearly can't be engaged in a truth or false format'. Well, who gets to decide *that*?
My question is pasically a 'quis custodiet...', simply following from your premise. On the one hand, you argue it's often too hard to tell fact from error, making the application of the label 'dis/misinformation' suspect. On the other hand, you seem quite sure you can tell when that's the case. That people 'can engage outside truth or false positioning', doesn't itself tell us that the topic being engaged is beyond such positioning.
Corrosive postmodern relativism of course eats it own tail. I daresay 'no one' *really* practices it consistently.
Talk of 'anyone' being able to make 'broad' assumption about intent by banning 'random' users/scientists/news orgs who report on 'any' of 'these' subject.....that's a whole lot of qualifying, there. What about a particular person making a reasoned case for nefarious intent being displayed by a particular internet user/scientist/news org whose 'study or report' is demonstrably flawed? Has no win in a libel case ever been justified?
Leaving aside the question of what you mean by 'liberalism', it's a commonplace, but also a statistical truth, as well as my anecdotal experience, that life scientists (I'm one) tend to vote 'liberal' (or at least Democra (which Europeans would call 'center left' at best). Are we failing to 'engage with reality'?
Speaking of which, I'm getting the sense that our views of reality are too divergent to sustain further debate.
Your speech is shallow and flip. The issue is not just about being for or against "censorship.". It's about how to promote a shared public realm in an age where right-wing money and power are intent on strangling democracy.
Putin says the same thing about western money and power vis-a-vis Russia. If memory serves, he cracked down on NGOs using very similar reasoning. How are we supposed to distinguish between the two? Wait to see how the censorial power is used and then make our determination?
I honestly don’t see much defense of democracy or liberal values from the left wing, either. And there is no shortage of money filling their coffers, either, you must admit.
Controlling the narrative is fine as long as it is *my* narrative being promoted. *My* narrative can never turn out to have been wrong. Speech can only be allowed for The Good People who do Good Things, and must be suppressed when it comes from The Bad People who do Bad Things. My preferred narrative is never driven by moneyed interests intent on strangling all dissent. We are The Good People. They are The Bad People. The Good People only ever have pure motives, and The Bad People only ever have malign motives, or they are too stupid to see how pure our motives are.
How do you think we can avoid the spread of dangerous ideas (and losing our democracy) without giving too much power to the government (and losing our democracy)? It's a tricky line to walk for sure
It’s interesting that we need constant refreshing of Mill’s insight into the dynamic between “living truths” and “dead dogmas.” Invoking and updating him in the way you have done is a valuable public service. Hoping this essay reaches many minds.
Yascha, I follow your reasoning to 100% - it is a very logical and coherent stance to take. I am a dual European and US citizen and am very familiar with both stances. Here is my problem: How do I cope with Rohinga being slaughtered in Burma, with misinfrmation campaigns amplified by the power of social platforms? and there are a whole slew of similar examples. Do I wait until sufficient alternative viewpoints gather steam and eventually win the debate and establish the truth? And then we all together go to their shallow graveyards to mourn? I bet they will be happy they won the argument.
The problem is that it isn't hard to imagine an alternative situation where the government is the one spreading the misinformation and using its censorship powers to crack down on dissenters. Just look at how Russia's media environment operates and how they use it to maintain support for the war in Ukraine. At best, you'd be preventing one slaughter while teeing up another.
The issue is not which legal mechanism will be benign -- tho some carefully crafted ones may work. The issue we are facing is NOT unregulated freedom (distorted by corporate and political power) vs governmental censorship. Rather it''s crafting a sense of shared public life that can shape power, politics and law...This point is obviously inadequate on its own, but it does address the flaws in Mounk's old-fashioned, inadequate, but popular perspective which satisfies Mark Zuckerberg.
90% of misinformation comes from the government who has a tyrannical terrorism agenda to protect in the name of depopulation. I wonder what the government is doing to promote expanding life on earth?
Appreciate your courage in sharing this opinion in a room of people who would apparently find it unpopular!
I mean to be fair- many of us have been worried about these things for at least 5-10 years. I think it’s funny that he has to gain points by pointing out he saw “right wing extremism” causing a problem with free speech first- before pointing out that most of this is coming from the educated, elite, liberals. . No- let’s drop all the ideological/ political labels. I really don’t care what side you think you’re on. This is insane. That IQ intelligent people continue to not see it or propagate it is insane. And despite so many other smart people saying it (but being on the wrong side of whatever people want to hear) … wake up. Read about how many times this has happened and didn’t go well.
The obsession over “disinformation” for the last decade is so odd and, yes, Orwellian. Until quite recently the term “disinformation” was rarely used, and it typically was applied to foreign intelligence operations. Now the term is used constantly by people who seem to believe it is ubiquitous and is a major cause for why other people have differing views.
It is hard for me to see it as anything other than an attempt to rationalize censorship by people who should be smart enough to know better.
It's not that hard. Disinformation is something the purveryor knows isn't true or proved. Misinformation is just: mistake.
I never claimed it was hard or that I did not understand the definition.
So you do really belief those who claim “disinformation” can read the minds of others? Those who claim widespread disinformation never actually give evidence that the purveyor knows that the claim is not true. They just assume it over and over again.
Your definition only makes sense in the real world if you assume that another person knows whether the purveyor of information knows that their statement is not true. When it is assumed to be the norm of what your political opponents are saying, then it is clearly just a rationalization for censorship or at least for ignoring alternate opinions.
To the best of my knowledge, few people accuse someone that they agree with as disseminating “disinformation”. They only accuse those they disagree with. That can only be true if a person thinks that their side always tells the truth and the other side lies.
Very convenient… and, yes, an excuse for censorship.
Of course we can't 'read minds'. But 1, it's not always necessary to -- written/oral evidence for the purposeful promotion of a lie may exist. And 2, even if it doesn't how do you imagine the legal system, including libel laws, operates in the absence of telapathic powers? And do you think propaganda doesn't really exist?
Regarding #1) very few allegations of disinformation are actually supported by “written/oral evidence for the purposeful promotion of a lie” and yet the allegation of “disinformation” is widespread. It is particularly important that those who allege disinformation do not even try to come up with that evidence., most likely because they do not care whether the evidence exists.
Regarding #2) Of course propaganda exists, but that is a different concept. That is specifically by the government against its own people. The legal system has nothing to do with determining disinformation vs misinformation vs fact vs difference of opinion. Libel is a different concept and its standard varies greatly by judicial system. In many, including the USA, libel is very difficult to prove exactly for the reasons that I outline above.
Glad that you acknowledge that we cannnot read minds. This means that in typical political discourse, it is extremely difficult to differentiate between disinformation, misinformation, and a difference of opinion.
Can you give me an example of an individual or group who you largely agree with disseminating disinformation?
I already agreed with you that disinformation (false propaganda) is a stronger label than misinformation (mistake) and has to be more carefully applied. There may or may not be 'very few' instances of disinformation where physical or verbal evidence exists, but certainly some high profile cases of it do exist. The Fox news
And no, propaganda is not just something used against a country's own people.
Intent is a very important concept in the law in the US and elsewhere. It's hard to prove. But it's not ignored or treated as an insuperable obstacle to conviction that someone was lying.
You're asking or an 'example of someone I agree with disseminating disinformation'? I assume your point is that disinformation is only ever practiced by the 'other side'. No, I don't believe that. I vote Democrat but I certainly don't hold them blameless of the practice; I've lived through every administration since the 1960s. I believe there's enough evidence, for example, to say it was disinformation, not simply misinformation, coming from the White House about Biden's mental acuity.
I should also add that disinformation can be employed by people who say they 'mean well'. They know they're spreading untruths, but it's for 'a good cause'. To name a distant enough example that it won't provoke partisan fury, one could point to propaganda that the US dumped into Germany (or broadcast to Germany) during WWII. The 'noble lie' concept exists for a reason. Many have used it as their excuse. But it's a very, very slipperly slope, and it can easily slide into hypocracy. Or at the very least in nowadays gotcha culture, 'really bad optics'.
What, if anything counts as disinformation, to you? Do you allow for its existence contra misinformation?
I believe the term “disinformation” only adds value to the political discourse if it is applied to spycraft, as was its use until quite recently.
The traditional word “lie” suffices for other deliberately incorrect statements.
“Misinformation” (which is clearly terminology that is meant to sound like intentional disinformation) is a step down from the traditional term “mistaken” or “incorrect.”
Yes, you are correct that propaganda can be used against adversary populace in wartime.
Our current political discourse, particularly as purveyed by the elites in the conference that the author attended, is clearly not in the slightest bit interested in presenting the physical or verbal evidence that you say is necessary to distinguish disinformation. They are clearly trying to morally justify censorship of their opponents in domestic politics. And they do so by crafting terminology that sound like spycraft (which is clearly intentional lies to undermine the adversary).
They are clearly using terminology more applicable to wartime enemies and applying it to domestic political opponents. It is bad for freedom of speech, social stability, and democratic governance. And, yes, it is Orwellian.
Does it not bother you that the “Nearly all of the attendees of the World Expession Forum seemed to agree that “misinformation” was one of the greatest dangers to befall democracy” and they favor increased censorship to deal with the problem?
Do you not see the same people who repeatedly use the word “disinformation” are also the leading advocates for increased censorship?
Can’t you see how the terminology used is key to justifying their censorship campaign?
It's not a matter of how hard determination is (though it's not *always* hard). It's down to intent. If you promote something as true that you believe -- or maybe even *know for a fact* -- is not true, that's different from making an honest mistake. There's a reason there are two different words, and they aren't synonymous. I agree with Michaal Magoon that 'disinformation', a word from spycraft and propaganda, is in much wider use now, and not always correctly. But not always incorrectly (e.g. Fox News's voting machine bullshit, for which they paid dearly). It *can* be something other than 'an attempt to rationalize censorship'.
So, in your schema, misinformation and disinformation don't exist, or are they simple misattributed?
Very timely and spot on!
The bickering in the comments certainly points to any discussion on this topic being a waste of time. People seem mostly interested in being right, and have completely missed the point.
Yascha, maybe they need an article on how to listen, how to consider ideas they dont already agree with, and what openmindedness really means, what that actually looks like, and why its necessary.
It should be no wonder why we're spinning our wheels in the mud of discourse.
A surprising number of people don't seem to appreciate that they are only ever one lost election away from being targeted by the very tools that they created.
YM is making a series of abstract and rather convoluted arguments here, which in the end comes across to me at least as rather meretricious. He quotes JS Mill and then elaborates Mills' key point about the need (in fact, the imperative) for someone to argue the other side.
This is an early version of Popper's insistence on the necessity for seeking refutation of all scientific hypotheses. The ability to survive the test of falsifiability is more critical than the ability to withstand the test of verifiability. No surprise then that Popper was also a fierce supporter of an "open" society, in which free expression was foundational.
I find it curious that Mounk cites cases of left-wing or progressive demands for restriction on free speech. The right-wing expansion of free speech that extends to fabulism, conspiracyism, paranoid ravings, all highly amplified in today's media environment are elided in the post. Protecting the weak from the powerful is unquestionably the main motivation for progressive liberals to ask for a self-imposed censorship. But here's the thing: they impose this standard equally on themselves as on their conservative opponents.
The right-wing on the other hand happily flaunt double standards. Now that they hold the whip hand (in the US, India, Hungary) they continue with their fabrications while cancelling and suppressing liberals.
And Popper did admit that vast tautological statements are a priori unfalsifiable. There is in some way an analog in political philosophy too. Using free expression to acquire power to shut down free expression of the opposing side is when the game ends. Right now, it looks as if that threat is coming from the right.
So, the left is justified in stifling the free speech of others because they do the same to themselves? That’s the weirdest argument I have ever seen. Anybody is free not to say anything they don’t want to say. But how is the left’s self-righteousness a justification for imposing restrictions on other people? It’s the equivalent of a prude censoring erotica because he does not get it himself. I am still waiting to hear how censorship is “protecting the weak” from anything. And who are the weak, anyway? A select group of assumed victims assigned this status by the educated elites? Muslims but not Jews; transwomen but not all women; BIPOC but not poor whites, etc. Mounk is absolutely correct. The main threat to liberal society is coming from the left.
So I suppose I should only suppress your speech while giving free rein to mine rather than restrain both yours and mine?
How about not restraining anybody else’s speech? Did such a simple solution not occur to you? Restraining your own speech, on the other hand, may be a good idea, especially if you have little to say.
I was talking about hypocrisy, Ms Bait and Switch. It might also be a good idea to post your comments here when you’re not drunk
“Hypocrisy is a homage vice plays to virtue” (attributed to de la Rouchefoucauld and occasionally, to Oscar Wilde). Better be a hypocrite who defends freedom of speech than an ideologue who wants to censor it.
An intriguing analysis—especially the invocation of Popper. But if we’re to guard against the use of free speech as a weapon, shouldn’t we watch for it across the spectrum, not just on the side currently out of favor? There’s a risk in assuming our own camp is immune to the temptations of suppression.
I’m sorry but with exception of your assertion that the left was hypocritical by selectively or sparingly (or not at all) applying censorship to themselves I did not understand the rest of your comment. Perhaps I need to read it again a few more times.
Absolutely phenomenal. I go by a holding the first as in a holding the first amendment. You are completely correct in your observations of censorship Mat Tabi does wonderful reporting in this area as well. Congratulations and good job.
I second the motion. ;)
Mr. Mounk is confusing apples with oranges here and is clearly unable to distinguish between the concepts of "freedom of expression" and the commission of criminal offenses—such as defamation and libel. Rather, he believes that in the political sphere, ALL statements people make regarding politicians or other public figures must be accepted without objection and without criminal prosecution. This is a very, very big mistake! It should also be clear to him that there is a huge difference between judging a politician's political behavior—for example, calling him a populist, fascist, or communist—and insulting him purely verbally without any such factual reference—for example, calling him an "idiot"—and thus degrading his human dignity.
Such insults, defamation, and slander are punishable offenses against EVERYONE in all civilized countries. Why shouldn't these rules also apply to politicians? Even though politicians certainly should have a somewhat thicker skin in this regard... But on the contrary: especially in Germany, it is evident that the indiscriminate, irrelevant insults and threats against public officials that Mr. Mounk obviously accepts are leading to fewer and fewer people running for such public office. Such a development certainly cannot correspond to Mr. Mounk's – although indeed a little naive – understanding, can it?
Please also note that the offender insulting this German Vice Chancellor has since been fined by a German court not for this insult (incidentally, the house search was carried out ex officio by the public prosecutor's office BEFORE Minister Habeck filed the criminal complaint), but for displaying unconstitutional symbols (Nazi symbols). Meaning: Mr. Mounk told just "half the truth". The insult proceedings were dismissed as less significant in respect of these crimes. Does Mr. Mounk now believes that freedom of expression also includes the right to display such unconstitutional symbols without punishment in Germany and other countries, even though our society and our criminal law still consider criminalization absolutely necessary today – for very good historical reasons? I hope he will comment on this as well - with the hope he will not simply apply US-American ideas of freedom of expression to all other countries in the world!
Mr. Mounk might be confused, but in such a case, I am as well. Do you believe that the discussions about Lab Leak versus Zoonotic Origin that were shut down by the government were libel/slander, or are those a just grievance?
It's completely absurd to assume that anything here was "prevented by the (German) government." Civilized countries have a clear criminal code according to which purely verbal insults against anyone are prohibited and punishable – which, of course (and in Germany, only in a more severe form) also applies to public officials, so that their important duties for the public do not lead to intimidation. Of course, punishable verbal insults must be strictly separated from permissible – even harsh, but substantively justified – criticisms of the behavior and views of politicians. Not so difficult to understand, is it?
No one was prosecuted for that.
There was just a heated public discourse, also wrong evidence used, e.g. it was clear that the WHO was unable to confirm the lab leak for diplomatic reasons as a UN institution. Some parts of the public attacked scientists that compiled information over lab leaks. Also the media was snarky at times, and unfair treatment of divergent opinions.
That had nothing to do with the state.
Any kind of conspiracy theories and false accusations must be rejected once and for all – which applies both to and against everyone involved here. Because: The problem cited here is currently as follows: To date, there is no definitive evidence for either hypothesis. The majority of genetic and epidemiological data to date tends to support the zoonosis theory, but the lab leak cannot be completely ruled out due to data gaps and the lack of full transparency from China. Period.
There is no need to reject anything.
Also there is a paradoxon. Science is not about defending established truth, that would be positivism. Still in the lights of public health confusion you have to defend the scientific "truth", while at the same time that would be methodically unscientific when applied to the scientific discourse.
The question of where the virus originated is, of course, not a "scientific" one, but a "factual" one, which (as explained) cannot be conclusively answered, at least not at present. Therefore, please do not contribute to further confusion here!
"One of the important questions concerned its origins. Did Covid originate in the natural world, or was it the accidental consequence of gain-of-function research in a lab with inadequate safety precautions? Answering this question was crucial for us to know how to deal with Covid; to take precautions for how to prevent the next pandemic; and to reflect on the kinds of rules which should in future constrain potentially dangerous forms of biological research. And yet, for the better part of two years, investigative journalists and eminent biologists who were collecting evidence for the so-called lab leak theory were censored by major social media platforms."
This itself is an inaccurate narrative -- I'll say misinformation not disinformation -- though I'm well aware it has become conventional wisdom among the punditocracy. All known pandemics had natural origins; and they do tend to start as zoonoses (from animal to human). Even so, the quite eminent scientists in molecular evolution (like Kristian Andersen) who wrote the famous Nature 'Proximal origins' letter, at first thought it was lab-made, but then, as they reviewed the data, quickly changed their minds -- and *had reported that decision timeline to the public* well before any supposedly damning selection of emails and Slacks were released. Pandemic preparedness had been advocated strongly by scientists well before the COVID pandemic (Trump defunded some of it). Before COVID there had also been robust ongoing debate among scientists about the wisdom of lab-engineering pathogens (something that is a subset of 'gain of function mutation' that everyone seem to think they know everything about now -- and it was under Trump in 2017 that an Obama-era GoF funding moratorium was *ended*). Knowing the natural vs. lab origin (and btw, 'lab-leak' encompasses both zoonosis-in-the-lab, and engineered-in-the-lab, which are two different things) of COVID wasn't necessary for any of that. I'm not sure exactly which 'eminent biologists' are referred to as being suppressed -- perhaps the 'herd immunity' geniuses behind the Barrington Declaration -- published in October 2020 and funded by a libertarian think tank -- like health economist Jay Battacharya, who's now standing by, hands clasped behind his back, as the NIH Trump appointed him to run is defunded? I hope you don't mean then-postdoc Alina Chan, her 'eminence' being a function of her tweets and appearances on Fox. Do you mean scientists who wrongly predicted relatively few COVID deaths (whereas Tony Fauci was called an alarmist for getting the rather larger number right -- but also later castigated for telling people not to worry too much in *Feb 2020* when only a handful of cases had been reported)? Proximal Origins was influential for sure especially in the liberal bubble (though if you *actually read it*, it doesn't rule out lab origin) but lab origin 'censoring' proved kinda *leaky*. Trump and Mike Pompeo were both advocating for lab origin within a month or so of Proximal Origins; by September Chan was piping up with her twitter 'questions and findings' in a Boston magazine profile (yes there are things other than 'social media platforms' out there), we got Barrington in October, then a big New York magazine 'asking questions' piece by novelist Nicholson Baker, who also touted it on MAGA stronghold MSNBC. Facebook's ban on lab leak chatter didn't start until Feb 2021-- and was lifted in May. By June that famous right winger Jon Stewart was mocking the natural origins hypothesis on Colbert's show. OOOH SO MUCH CENSORING. (People's memories being as terrible as they are, especially on this topic, they forget that the 'censoring' on social media was mostly about vaccines, not COVID origin)
It would be nice if more pundits acknowledged that, regardless of which government agencies (without detailing their reasoning) switch from 'low confidence' natural origin to 'low confidence' lab origin or vice versa, zoonosis in the 'wild' (eg wet markets) still has plenty of support among scientists, "with many prominent and unimpeachably pedigreed figures going so far as to call the lab leak theory a dead end and large surveys, though imperfect, showing significant support among virologistsand epidemiologists for a natural origin explanation" as David Wallace-Wells put it ("Why Are So Many People Sure Covid Leaked From a Lab? , NY Times May 21, 2025). Maybe they should talk to/read some of *those* eminent sources?
Misinformation isn't 'OK', it's just less morally wrong.
Is it 'censorship' to not teach young-earth creationism in biology class?
Huh? What doesn't bother you?
As for 'policy-wise', you are just loading the question, by stipulating that the 'the subject clearly can't be engaged in a truth or false format'. Well, who gets to decide *that*?
My question is pasically a 'quis custodiet...', simply following from your premise. On the one hand, you argue it's often too hard to tell fact from error, making the application of the label 'dis/misinformation' suspect. On the other hand, you seem quite sure you can tell when that's the case. That people 'can engage outside truth or false positioning', doesn't itself tell us that the topic being engaged is beyond such positioning.
Corrosive postmodern relativism of course eats it own tail. I daresay 'no one' *really* practices it consistently.
Talk of 'anyone' being able to make 'broad' assumption about intent by banning 'random' users/scientists/news orgs who report on 'any' of 'these' subject.....that's a whole lot of qualifying, there. What about a particular person making a reasoned case for nefarious intent being displayed by a particular internet user/scientist/news org whose 'study or report' is demonstrably flawed? Has no win in a libel case ever been justified?
Leaving aside the question of what you mean by 'liberalism', it's a commonplace, but also a statistical truth, as well as my anecdotal experience, that life scientists (I'm one) tend to vote 'liberal' (or at least Democra (which Europeans would call 'center left' at best). Are we failing to 'engage with reality'?
Speaking of which, I'm getting the sense that our views of reality are too divergent to sustain further debate.
Your speech is shallow and flip. The issue is not just about being for or against "censorship.". It's about how to promote a shared public realm in an age where right-wing money and power are intent on strangling democracy.
Putin says the same thing about western money and power vis-a-vis Russia. If memory serves, he cracked down on NGOs using very similar reasoning. How are we supposed to distinguish between the two? Wait to see how the censorial power is used and then make our determination?
I honestly don’t see much defense of democracy or liberal values from the left wing, either. And there is no shortage of money filling their coffers, either, you must admit.
Controlling the narrative is fine as long as it is *my* narrative being promoted. *My* narrative can never turn out to have been wrong. Speech can only be allowed for The Good People who do Good Things, and must be suppressed when it comes from The Bad People who do Bad Things. My preferred narrative is never driven by moneyed interests intent on strangling all dissent. We are The Good People. They are The Bad People. The Good People only ever have pure motives, and The Bad People only ever have malign motives, or they are too stupid to see how pure our motives are.
How do you think we can avoid the spread of dangerous ideas (and losing our democracy) without giving too much power to the government (and losing our democracy)? It's a tricky line to walk for sure
It’s interesting that we need constant refreshing of Mill’s insight into the dynamic between “living truths” and “dead dogmas.” Invoking and updating him in the way you have done is a valuable public service. Hoping this essay reaches many minds.
We keep forgetting the hard earned wisdom that protected us from my side bias….
Micro-Penis…the Southpark sobriquet for DJT…
When all the other epithets bounce…
Yascha, I follow your reasoning to 100% - it is a very logical and coherent stance to take. I am a dual European and US citizen and am very familiar with both stances. Here is my problem: How do I cope with Rohinga being slaughtered in Burma, with misinfrmation campaigns amplified by the power of social platforms? and there are a whole slew of similar examples. Do I wait until sufficient alternative viewpoints gather steam and eventually win the debate and establish the truth? And then we all together go to their shallow graveyards to mourn? I bet they will be happy they won the argument.
The problem is that it isn't hard to imagine an alternative situation where the government is the one spreading the misinformation and using its censorship powers to crack down on dissenters. Just look at how Russia's media environment operates and how they use it to maintain support for the war in Ukraine. At best, you'd be preventing one slaughter while teeing up another.
The issue is not which legal mechanism will be benign -- tho some carefully crafted ones may work. The issue we are facing is NOT unregulated freedom (distorted by corporate and political power) vs governmental censorship. Rather it''s crafting a sense of shared public life that can shape power, politics and law...This point is obviously inadequate on its own, but it does address the flaws in Mounk's old-fashioned, inadequate, but popular perspective which satisfies Mark Zuckerberg.
“Answering this question was crucial for us to know how to deal with Covid”
Why does the answer make any difference to the critical and urgent public health dilemmas?
90% of misinformation comes from the government who has a tyrannical terrorism agenda to protect in the name of depopulation. I wonder what the government is doing to promote expanding life on earth?
How'd you come to that estimate, Crixcyon?