WEF calls on stakeholders to ‘inoculate’ public against disinformation ‘super-spreaders’: report

Those who decry ‘disinformation’ the loudest almost never give any examples of what they’re denouncing: perspective

The World Economic Forum (WEF) calls on social media platforms and other stakeholders to inoculate the public against disinformation super-supers because individuals aren’t capable of assessing the credibility of information alone, according to a WEF report on media literacy.

With 175 mentions of the word “disinformation” and 49 mentions of “misinformation,” the latest WEF report, “Rethinking Media Literacy: A New Ecosystem Model for Information Integrity,” never gives a single solitary example of disinformation or misinformation.

However, it does go into great detail on how public and private entities can control narratives under the guise of promoting “media and information literacy [MIL].”

“Enforce proportionate, clear and consistent action against ‘super-spreaders’ of disinformation, including coordinated networks that operate within and between platforms […] Develop campaigns that ‘inoculate’ the public against persistent disinformation by exposing the tactics and motives behind misleading content“

WEF, “Rethinking Media Literacy: A New Ecosystem Model for Information Integrity,” July 2025

To get an idea of the people behind this report and their biases, the lead authors all hail from big tech and unelected globalist institutions that partner with one another to artificially manipulate search results, that find influencers to prop-up and deliver their messaging, and that denounce any information that could impede progress on the UN’s Agenda 2030 as disinformation, misinformation or hate speech.

The lead authors are:

• Adeline Hulin: Head of Unit for Media and Information Literacy and Digital Competencies at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
• Jennie King: Director of Climate Research and Policy at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD)
• Daegan Kingery: Digital Safety and Trustworthy Technology Specialist at the WEF
• Ashley Walker: Trust and Safety User Experience Researcher at Google

These authors don’t believe that you or I are capable of accurately discerning misinformation and disinformation by ourselves, so we need “stakeholders” — those who represent big tech, government, academia, and globalist think tanks — to guide our thinking.

“The onus cannot be solely on individual information consumers to assess credibility, when the mechanisms and tools to enable deception at ever-greater speed, scale, sophistication and complexity are ubiquitous.
“In such an environment, responsibility must be shared by a whole range of stakeholders. This includes the structures that exist to incentivize certain behaviors over others”

WEF, “Rethinking Media Literacy: A New Ecosystem Model for Information Integrity,” July 2025

The notion that citizens need to be shielded from “harmful content” was codified in the UN’s Pact for the Future, which was signed by all member states at last year’s “Summit of the Future.”

They call this “information integrity” — a blanket term to crackdown on what they consider to be disinformation that could impede progress on their agendas, particularly anything related to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), aka Agenda 2030.

The WEF report acknowledges that freedom of speech and expression are foundational to free societies, yet the authors claim that so-called “disinformation” — which is a form of free speech — attacks people’s abilities to make informed decisions.

“Perhaps most importantly, disinformation disrupts the ability of individuals to freely make informed choices about what is in their own best interest,” the authors write.

The authors even go so far as to twist the meaning of Article 19 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, implying that the ability to defend oneself against disinformation is directly related to freely seeking, receiving, and imparting information.

For example, they write:

“Beyond enabling individuals to defend themselves against manipulation or disinformation, the ability to seek, receive and impart information freely is a fundamental right, enshrined in international human rights frameworks such as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

But if we look at Article 19, it says no such thing about disinformation; it implies quite the opposite, stating that the right to freedom of opinion and expression “includes freedom to hold opinions without interference,” and freedom to “impart information and ideas through any media.”

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”

United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

The war on disinformation, the desire to crackdown on dissenting opinions about climate change, the notion of “information integrity,” and the push to re-educate the public through “media and information literacy” are all an affront to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What are all these measures aimed at other than interfering with freedom of opinion and expression or limiting the the ability to impart information and ideas, especially when it comes to perspectives regarding foreign conflicts, public health, climate change, and elections?

“There is a resounding commitment from the international community on the need and continued urgency to advance MIL, most recently reaffirmed in the UN Pact for the Future“

WEF, “Rethinking Media Literacy: A New Ecosystem Model for Information Integrity,” July 2025

Media and information literacy, the WEF authors say, is a safeguard for freedom of expression: “MIL acts as both a safeguard and an enabler of this right, ensuring that people are not silenced by manipulation, overwhelmed by disinformation or disenfranchised by their inability to critically engage with the information around them.”

Do they not realize that the tactics they preach can easily be used against them?

Is it possible that the authors themselves, and the groups they represent, actively disenfranchise others from critically engaging by de-monetizing, down-ranking, and de-platforming people they don’t agree with?

Try saying anything that is critical of the UN’s climate change narrative, or saying anything that goes against World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations and see how quickly Google and other platforms will make sure your content is removed or buried and that all your ad revenue is suspended.

“The development and implementation of MIL policies must be carried out in coordination with key stakeholders, including regulatory authorities, media, civil society, fact-checking and youth-led organizations and educational institutions”

WEF, “Rethinking Media Literacy: A New Ecosystem Model for Information Integrity,” July 2025

When it comes to the dissemination of so-called disinformation, there are three areas where the WEF authors make recommendations to platforms and other stakeholders: Supply, Demand, and Marketplace.

Supply:

• Enforce proportionate, clear and consistent action against “super-spreaders” of disinformation, including coordinated networks that operate within and between platforms. This should extend to advertisers as well as group admins.
• Incorporate nudges – such as prompts encouraging users to verify information before sharing, or notifying them when they are about to engage with content flagged as misleading.

Who determines what is disinformation?

What type of “action against ‘super-spreaders’ of disinformation” are we talking about? Censorship?

How does this apply to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, specifically the freedom to “impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers?”

Demand:

• Elevate trustworthy sources of information, including through partnerships between emergency responders and digital platforms.
• Develop campaigns that “inoculate” the public against persistent disinformation by exposing the tactics and motives behind misleading content.
• Partner with influencers and content creators who shape online discourse and drive engagement, ensuring that accurate information reaches audiences where they naturally consume news. These partnerships can help counter disinformation in a more organic and relatable way.

Partnering with influencers to make content seem more organic is a deceptive way of spreading institutional propaganda, yet this is exactly the modus operandi of the WHO and the UN as a whole.

The UN also partnered with Google to manipulate search results on climate change, so that only UN-approved resources appear at the top.

So when globalists call for elevating trustworthy resources, they are talking about wanting to elevate their own biased agendas, but the only problem is that they’ve lost so much of their credibility that the WEF Annual Meeting 2024 was actually dedicated to “Rebuilding Trust.”

Yet they never stop to think why they lost trust in the first place.

And the only thing they can come up with to explain why people don’t trust them is that it must be because you and I are falling for disinformation campaigns, so we need to be re-educated to think like they do with media and information literacy training.

Marketplace:

• Introduce “circuit breakers” for moments when disinformation surges, particularly around elections, conflicts, terrorist incidents, natural disasters and public health emergencies.
• Label known disinformation using tools such as hashing, enabling quicker identification and mitigation as content spreads across and between platforms.

Again, who is determining what is disinformation, how would they be able to say what is true or not in the heat of the moment or the start of an emergency, and why would they deploy “circuit breakers” on which types of information people are allowed to consume?

Sounds again like a contradiction to their precious Article 19.

“Expose the common features of low-quality or low-trust information, including clickbait, content farms, propaganda, advertising and synthetic or manipulated media. Raise awareness of these red flags and champion signals of information integrity”

WEF, “Rethinking Media Literacy: A New Ecosystem Model for Information Integrity,” July 2025

Both the WEF and the UN put misinformation and disinformation at the top of their respective Global Risk Reports, and neither ever give a single example of misinformation or disinformation.

Last week, the UN announced it was putting together a taskforce to focus on the effects of what it considered to “be mis- and disinformation” about the globalist organization’s ability to deliver on its mandate, which is primarily focused on implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, aka “Agenda 2030.”

The WEF and the UN are also partners with each other, their agendas overlap, and they use the same phrases to promote their own propaganda — the latest being “information integrity.”

And time and time again, those who decry disinformation the loudest almost never give a single example of what they’re denouncing.

If they were to do so, then the media literacy skills they claim to promote could come back to haunt them as more and more people begin to question their motives, their policies, their studies, and their agendas.

---

Image Source: AI generated with Grok