Malinformation
A term used by bureaucrats with a God complex.
An admission that an institution views transparency and truth as inconveniences. This should compel us to discover exactly what their priorities are, keeping in mind that our democratic project is entirely defined and justified by the responsible management of our personal information.
Most of the information used by government institutions belongs to its citizens by definition. This is true philosophically and often legally in many countries. It includes our dates of birth, education records, medical records, employment and tax records, property ownership, vehicle registration, legal records, and any additional information that has been captured through online and offline surveillance, legal or otherwise. They also share this information at their discretion, generally because there is a provision that permits it, and these categories and both created and mandated by them. This is likely essential for governments to perform their duties, whatever they may be, but this delicate system perpetually teeters towards systemic cannibalism.
Numerous government agencies have begun to categorize information publicly, allegedly for the benefit of concerned citizens, so that we may better distinguish between reliable and unreliable information. Ignoring the condescension intrinsic to such framings, a new category has slowly become a mainstay on agency websites: malinformation.
There are slight variations in how agencies define malinformation, but for the uninitiated, generally speaking, malinformation is: information that is factual, but is considered to combat the interests of the government due to it being taken out of context. In a bulletin issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Feb 7, 2022, spreading malinformation is considered an act of terrorism caused by domestic and foreign threat actors.(1)
Or perhaps, this is being taken out of context? I suppose that may make me a terrorist then.
Most countries have existing laws that punish the unsanctioned release of national secrets and other protected and confidential information - this is not the same thing at all. We are moving in a direction where our governments can label free citizens as terrorists – stripping us of our rights without due process – for telling the truth, because it is politically inconvenient.
Who decides, after all, which context is correct? What does out of context even mean? Is this not just a matter of perspective or disagreement? Are we going to pretend that some information cannot be considered noteworthy or significant in more than one context, or according to more than one view? Most conversations occur precisely because clarity is being sought in one or more ways, and context is one of them.
Recall that most government information belongs to us, and that which does not is supposed to be collected and used in concordance with the interests of the citizenry. Even if information pertains to espionage or sensitive strategic planning, while we may not be permitted to access it, its collection is justified because it supports the nation, which is a literal representation for the interests of individual citizens. If it does not benefit us, then it benefits someone or something else, and this means that our information, mine and yours, is being used as a means to serve the interests of another. This is anti-democratic, unethical, and would constitute fraud according to most legal definitions.
The fact that such a term exists is an indication that authoritarian personalities have become brazen enough that they do not feel they need to keep their proclivities concealed. This is refreshing in a way, because it clarifies the rules of engagement for everyone. Unfortunately, we are the powerless in this relationship. Any semblance of due process and legal rights are circumvented when someone is labeled a terrorist in most countries, and so even the basic civility we reserved for the innocent until proven guilty is quickly eroded due to the cascade of bureaucratic overreach.
This is yet another example that the policing, framing and definition of information has been prioritized above transparency, debate and democratic governance.
As time goes by, our governments appear less and less concerned with representing our interests, rather, it seems that we are expected to embody theirs. Or else.
See: INFORMATION, DISINFORMATION, MISINFORMATION, POLITICS
(1) National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin - February 07, 2022, 02:00pm, The Department of Homeland Security, Issued on February 7, 2022, https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisory-system-bulletin-february-07-2022
Posted: 24 Jan 2023
