Visit our Re-post guidelines
In an era where the line between fact and fiction often blurs, a startling saga of misinformation, defamation, and potential foreign interference has emerged, threatening the very foundations of free speech on both sides of the Atlantic.
At the center of this storm stands the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a UK-based nonprofit whose crusade against what it deems "misinformation" has spiraled into a dangerous campaign of its own. From the hallowed halls of the British Parliament to the chambers of the U.S. Congress, CCDH's inflammatory rhetoric and contested research have not only misled lawmakers but potentially endangered the constitutional rights of citizens. As this tale of "truth-telling" unravels, it reveals a chilling narrative of how 'noble intentions' can mutate into a threat to democracy itself, raising urgent questions about accountability, free speech, and the power of unchecked advocacy in the digital age.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate's Contested Claims: A Transatlantic Tale
When the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) published its "Disinformation Dozen" report in March 2021, it quickly captured global attention. The report claimed that just 12 individuals were responsible for up to 65% of anti-vaccine content on social media platforms. This explosive assertion caught the eye of lawmakers in both the United Kingdom and the United States, leading to high-profile testimonies that would later come under intense scrutiny.
UK Parliament Testimony: Setting the Stage
On September 9, 2021, CCDH submitted opening oral and written evidence to the UK Parliament's House of Commons Joint Select Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, which they later take full credit for passing. In this submission, CCDH reiterated its claims about the "Disinformation Dozen" and their alleged outsized influence on vaccine misinformation online.
Key points from CCDH's UK testimony:*
- Claimed the "Disinformation Dozen" were responsible for up to 65% of anti-vaccine content shared on Facebook and Twitter.
- Ahmed employed language that subtly implied criminal behavior: "Social media's failure to act in the pandemic has cost us lives, government's failure to act in the pandemic's wake could cost us our society." This framing suggests that those accused of spreading misinformation are indirectly responsible for deaths, a serious allegation that borders on implying criminal negligence without any legal basis.
- Emphasized that platforms designed systems that support the dissemination of conspiracy theories and misinformation, suggesting a deliberate tolerance of bad actors for economic benefit
Meta's Rebuttal: A Turning Point
Unbeknownst to UK lawmakers at the time, Facebook's parent company Meta had already publicly refuted CCDH's central claims three weeks earlier. On August 18, 2021, Monika Bickert, Meta's VP of Content Policy, issued a statement directly challenging CCDH's assertions:
"People who have advanced this narrative contend that these 12 people are responsible for 73% of online vaccine misinformation on Facebook. There isn't any evidence to support this claim."
Meta's data painted a starkly different picture:
- The "Disinformation Dozen" were responsible for only about 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook.
- This represents a discrepancy of three orders of magnitude (1460-fold)) compared to CCDH's claims.
US Congressional Hearing: Doubling Down
Despite Meta's clear refutation in August, CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed submitted written testimony to the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis on November 17, 2021. This testimony continued to promote the "Disinformation Dozen" narrative:
"Our research shows that just twelve anti-vaxxers are responsible for up to 65% of anti-vaccine content."
The hearing, titled "Combating Coronavirus Cons and the Monetization of Misinformation," featured CCDH's claims prominently, potentially influencing policy discussions around social media regulation and public health measures.
Chilling Implications: Foreign Influence and the Threat to Free Speech
The controversy surrounding CCDH's testimony takes on a more sinister aspect when examining the specific language used by CEO Imran Ahmed in his statements to both the UK Parliament and US Congress, as well as in media appearances. This rhetoric, coming from a foreign-based organization, raises alarming questions about attempts to influence US policy in ways that could threaten First Amendment protections.
Rhetoric Implying Criminality
In his testimony to the UK Parliament, Ahmed employed language that subtly implied criminal behavior:
"Social media's failure to act in the pandemic has cost us lives, government's failure to act in the pandemic's wake could cost us our society."
This framing suggests that those accused of spreading misinformation are indirectly responsible for deaths, a serious allegation that borders on implying criminal negligence without any legal basis.
The rhetoric escalated in Ahmed's statement to the US Congress:
"We must find ways to stop those who seek to profit by sowing doubt, spreading falsehoods, and exploiting fears amongst the American people. By encouraging the use of bogus treatments, these groups, along with many others, have put American lives at risk and prolonged the pandemic."
This characterization uses language reminiscent of criminal indictments, despite the absence of any formal charges or legal proceedings against the named individuals.
Defamatory Statements in Media Appearances
Ahmed's inflammatory rhetoric extended beyond official testimony. In a March 29, 2021 appearance on the Matt Binder Podcast titled "The Anti-Vaxxer Disinformation Dozen," Ahmed made a startling accusation against Sayer Ji, one of the individuals named in the CCDH report:
"Sayer Ji sells death...[is] literally killing people with your [sic] misinformation."
This statement goes beyond implying criminality to directly accusing an individual of causing deaths, a claim that could be considered defamatory if proven false.
Calls for Government Intervention
Ahmed's testimony also included explicit calls for government action to regulate online speech:
"Governments need to set up new bodies to look at how bad faith actors use the Internet to cause harm and convene non-governmental bodies that can respond effectively."
This suggestion of creating quasi-judicial bodies to police online speech raises serious concerns about due process and freedom of expression, especially coming from a foreign entity addressing US lawmakers.
Analysis: A Threat to First Amendment Rights
The combination of potentially false research claims, rhetoric implying criminality, and outright defamatory statements presents a clear and present danger to free speech protections:
- Undue Foreign Influence: As a UK-based organization, CCDH's attempts to shape US policy on speech regulation could be seen as unregistered foreign lobbying.
- Criminalization of Protected Speech: The language used by Ahmed blurs the line between protected speech and criminal activity, potentially setting the stage for unconstitutional restrictions on free expression.
- Abuse of Official Platforms: By presenting contested claims as fact in official settings, CCDH leveraged the credibility of parliamentary and congressional hearings to amplify its message.
- Defamation and Character Assassination: Ahmed's statement about Sayer Ji "selling death" and "literally killing people" crosses the line from policy advocacy to personal attacks that could have serious legal consequences.
- Chilling Effect: The implicit threat of government action or criminal penalties for certain forms of speech, combined with public defamation, could lead to self-censorship and stifle public debate on important issues.
- Erosion of Democratic Norms: Attempting to use fraudulent or misrepresented research to influence policy decisions, while simultaneously making inflammatory public statements, undermines the integrity of the legislative process and public trust in democratic institutions.
Conclusion
The CCDH controversy serves as a stark warning about the dangers of allowing unverified claims, inflammatory rhetoric, and foreign influence to shape domestic policy, especially regarding fundamental rights such as freedom of speech. It highlights the need for rigorous fact-checking, transparency in advocacy, and vigilant protection of constitutional rights in an era of global information flows and cross-border policy influences.
As this case demonstrates, the road to erosion of free speech protections can be paved with seemingly well-intentioned efforts to combat misinformation. The escalation from contested research claims to outright accusations of causing deaths shows how quickly policy debates can devolve into personal attacks that threaten both individual reputations and broader democratic principles.
It is crucial for lawmakers, media, and the public to critically examine the claims and motivations of all actors in policy debates, especially when core democratic values are at stake. The CCDH case underscores the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between protected speech, even when controversial, and actual criminal behavior. Failure to do so risks setting dangerous precedents that could be exploited to silence dissenting voices and undermine the foundational freedoms of democratic societies.
References
1. Center for Countering Digital Hate. "The Disinformation Dozen." March 24, 2021. https://www.counterhate.com/
2. UK Parliament. "Written Evidence Submitted by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (OSB0009)." September 22, 2021. https://committees.parliament.
3. Bickert, Monika. "How We're Taking Action Against Vaccine Misinformation Superspreaders." Meta, August 18, 2021. https://about.fb.com/news/
4. U.S. House of Representatives. "Combating Coronavirus Cons and the Monetization of Misinformation." Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, November 17, 2021. https://coronavirus.house.gov/
5. Ahmed, Imran. "Statement for the Record by Imran Ahmed." U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, November 17, 2021.
6. Loomba, S., de Figueiredo, A., Piatek, S.J. et al. "Measuring the Impact of COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation on Vaccination Intent in the UK and USA." Nature Human Behaviour 5 (2021): 337-348.
Disqus