a comprehensive guide to censorship and indoctrination
Dr Gary Sidley
In May 2026, a Government-commissioned paper was published, titled ‘False and Misleading Information: An Evidence Summary and Map for Policy and Practice’. Despite its relatively benign heading, it reads like an instruction manual to enable state control of the population’s beliefs and behaviour and, as such, is arguably one of the most chillingly authoritarian documents to be considered by the political leaders of a supposedly open and democratic society.
At the request of the Government Office of Science, the paper was written by a group of social scientists at an organisation called, Behavioural Research UK – a research consortium hosted by Edinburgh University whose stated mission is to conduct ‘interdisciplinary behavioural research … addressing societal challenges’. Its personnel includes researchers from the University of Oxford, University College London, and the UK Health Security Agency, and one of the organisation’s co-directors is Professor Susan Michie, a prominent ‘nudger’ during the covid event and currently the Chair of the World Health Organization’s Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights. In compiling the document, Behavioural Research UK purportedly conducted a rapid review of the relevant literature, followed by a consultation with ‘11 experts working in the field of false and misleading information’ who were recruited for a ‘consensus-based exercise’ via ‘a rigorous filtering process to ensure high-quality input’ – I think we can reliably conclude that this selection procedure resulted in a band of ‘experts’ who, collectively, were less than representative of the wide spectrum of opinion about what constitutes misinformation and the means by which it should be countered.
The recommended manipulation techniques
So what strategies did this learned band of partisan scholars endorse as the most effective in evoking right-think in the general population? In the words of the authors, to counter misinformation requires a response that ‘must be sustained, adaptive, and layered across prevention, correction, education, and regulation, in a whole-of-society approach’ (p47). In other words, a global, multi-tentacled system of state censorship and mind control.
The specific recommended interventions – ranging from a focus on the individual to intervention at the systems level – were as follows:
1. PREBUNKING
Avoiding the formation of a problematic belief is deemed to be more effective than attempting to correct the belief once it is established. Recognising that prevention is better than a cure, the recommended ‘first line of defence’ is prebunking. A process called ‘psychological inoculation’ is the most widely used form of this approach and basically involves two stages:
a) Present the target person with a weakened form of the purportedly misleading claim;
b) Offer a pre-emptive counter-argument that undermines the false claim before it takes hold.
As an example, one might pre-warn people that someone might, in the future, try to influence them by saying that the childhood vaccines have not been rigorously tested in placebo-controlled trials, but that this assertion is misleading as all vaccines have been approved by independent regulatory bodies. Even more alarmingly, the authors highlight the value of deploying prebunking in a game form that can be used in schools; examples include ‘Go Viral’, an interactive process that aspires to ‘inoculate’ the participants against the influence of covid misinformation, and the ‘Bad News Game’, an exercise that aims to ‘expose the tactics and manipulation techniques that are used to mislead people’ – the latter initiative helpfully includes an information sheet on how to use it in a classroom setting.
2. DEBUNKING
As not all misinformation can be anticipated, prebunking alone is deemed insufficient, and the experts at Behaviour Research UK recommend the deployment of other remedial strategies. Providing corrections in real-time – ‘debunking’ – is one such measure.
At its most basic, it involves ‘fact-checking’ an assertion and, if it is deemed to be inaccurate, labelling it as misinformation; more definitive labels, such as ‘rated false’ are preferred to equivocal terms like ‘disputed’. The manual suggests that offering a ‘replacement explanation’ is more effective than just flagging the claim as erroneous, particularly if the correction derives from credible sources (a tactic that, in the language of behavioural science, exploits the ‘messenger’ nudge). Furthermore, incorporating a counter claim that most people or scientists believe the replacement explanation – a ‘normative pressure’ nudge – is also recommended, along with ensuring that this alternative account is ‘featured more prominently than the information being corrected’.
Finally, in what sounds perilously close to endorsing the smearing of dissenting voices, the authors go on to state that, ‘debunking can be effective by discrediting unreliable or misleading sources’ (p49).
3. MEDIA LITERACY TRAINING
On first hearing, the expression ‘media literacy training’ sounds like a desirable way forward, raising the prospect that it might involve the teaching of much-needed critical thinking skills to the general population. Alas, this does not appear to be the intention. In this instance, the purpose is to enable people to detect distortions within the digital media environment through the deployment of ‘interactive, skills-based programmes anchored to real misinformation examples’ (p70), thereby suggesting that participants will be taught how to dismiss narratives that challenge government stances on contemporary controversies such as ‘safe and effective’ vaccines and imminent climate catastrophes.
The authors propose that media literacy training should be ‘delivered through school curricula, community programmes, online modules, and workplace training’, involve lengthy (5-hour) interventions, and be approached as a ‘lifelong learning process’ (p70), advocating what many critics of dominant government narratives might regard as a form of indoctrination from cradle to grave.
4. PLATFORM & GOVERNANCE REGULATION
Throughout the document the authors repeatedly stress that individual interventions (prebunking and debunking), even in combination with educational initiatives like media literacy training, will be insufficient to achieve a meaningful overall impact on the abundant levels of ‘misinformation’ within the digital environment. More effective censorship at source is necessary.
After asserting that self-regulation by social media platforms has failed, these government advisors insist that ‘enforcement mechanisms are essential’ (p73). Specifically, they recommend regulatory frameworks that ‘moderate, label, amplify, and distribute’ the outputs of social media forums, thereby ‘reducing the algorithmic reach of content identified as false or misleading’.
In true Orwellian fashion, ‘researcher access to platform data’ (p77) must be a component of any regulatory framework, thus permitting the study of how misinformation spreads and facilitating the sanctioning of tech companies that host material that deviates from the official government narratives. To aid the adjudication of what is – and what is not – misinformation, there should be a reliance on ‘existing medical data governance standards’. Taken together these recommendations seem likely to lead to the ominous situation where the only ‘researchers’ with privileged access to platform data will be government department personnel or those from approved state-funded NGOs, and the arbiters of truth will be the fundamentally conflicted institutions such as the medical industrial complex and the global climate industry.
5. SUPPLY-SIDE DISRUPTION
This is, indeed, as sinister as it sounds: a recommendation that the government impose censorship at source. ‘Supply-side disruption’ is defined in the document as:
‘Interventions targeting the production and organised distribution of disinformation, rather than its reception by audiences… disrupting their ability to produce and distribute false content at scale’ (p76).
Part of this silencing of voices of those commentators judged, by our ruling elite, to be spreading narratives disparate to their world view, would involve denying these dissenters revenue by:
‘Removing disinformation producers from advertising networks and demonetising their content to reduce financial incentives’ (p76).
One element of this mission to financially squeeze those producing information that challenges the official government narratives should be (according to the authors) a targeting of third-part commercial operators who produce this material on behalf of paying clients, thereby achieving ‘disruption of disinformation-for-hire networks’ (p76).
But perhaps all is not lost. Embedded within this censors’ charter is a flicker of insight into the perils of this measure within a free and open society, by their conceding that there is a, ‘Risk of overreach: poorly targeted supply-side measures can suppress legitimate speech’ (p77) – No shit, Sherlock!
The striking features of this manipulation manual
In addition to their blatant endorsement of government censorship and manipulation – encouraging our ruling elite to silence and deceive the very people they are elected to serve – the scribes at Behaviour Research UK display several other troubling features.
1. AN UNSHAKABLE BELIEF THAT THE STATE IS THE SOLE ARBITER OF TRUTH
In 2020, Jacinda Ardern (the then Prime Minister of New Zealand) said – as part of the covid advice – that, ‘Unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth’. Such smug self-confidence, asserting that the state is the only reliable source of accurate information, is endemic across Western governments and their third-party commissioned collaborators; for example, in the UK, the ‘Nudge Unit’ (aka the Behavioural Insight Team, a group of behavioural scientists who have long advised the government about psychological manipulation techniques) and the ‘Research, Information & Communication Unit’, RICU, (a government department purportedly countering terrorist propaganda) have routinely displayed the same misplaced assurance that their take on the world is the only valid viewpoint. Similarly, the authors of this paper espouse guidance underpinned by the assumption that the official narratives proffered by our ruling elite are always the only valid perspectives.
The document does, however, occasionally make passing reference to the potential value of exploring what is, and what is not, accurate information. For instance the advisors state that, ‘Debates about how to define … false and misleading information are legitimate and serve a purpose’, but they then neatly sideline this core issue by insisting this debate ‘should not become a distraction from the mechanisms that cause the greatest harm’ (p14). The shakiness of their foundational presumptions of what constitutes reality is further illustrated by their repeated reference to ‘vaccine misinformation’ and ‘climate denial’ as prominent examples of misleading narratives, despite the fact that official perspectives on vaccines and climate are highly contested. They even cite ‘institutional delegitimisation’ as another example of misinformation, thereby giving weight to the suspicion that – in their world – any criticisms of our ruling administrations must be silenced.
When debunking misinformation, the advice is (p70) to refer to ‘weight-of-evidence’ and ‘scientific consensus’, a recommendation that shows no recognition of the fact that – as a direct consequence of the widespread silencing and cancellation of opposing voices (censorial processes which they are championing) – there are fundamental biases in the published scientific literature. And it is less than reassuring to read (p20) that the ‘truth’ (as conceived by Behavioural Research UK) is determined by the outputs of ‘non-partisan’ sources such as BBC Verify, an enterprise whose objectivity would be questioned by many commentators.
2. BLATANT HYPOCRISY
The paper is riddled with flagrant examples of hypocrisy:
– While they bemoan the exponential growth of misleading information from alternative sources, many government departments and state-funded organisations (such as the ‘Nudge Unit’, UK Health Security Agency, the Met Office) habitually churn out, and/or amplify, falsehoods of their own.
– While they bemoan the harms of misinformation from alternative sources, there is no apparent recognition of the pervasive harms of misinformation emanating from official sources (for example, ‘safe and effective’ vaccines, the dire consequences of lockdowns during the covid event, and climate Armageddon narratives evoking pervasive mental health problems in young people).
– While they bemoan how algorithms are used to amplify misinformation, their paper explicitly recommends the state use this very same strategy to spread their official narratives.
– While they bemoan the existence of ‘hidden networks of influence’ and financial incentives for spreaders of misinformation, they omit to mention the – often lucrative – fiscal rewards acquired by those embedded in the pandemic and climate industries who are championing the state-sanctioned narratives.
– While they bemoan the potential for false and misleading information to pose ‘a systemic risk to democracy by undermining … the possibility of informed public deliberation’ (p41), they are (in this document) advocating for the censorship and manipulation of people’s speech and beliefs, actions that will minimise the open public debate they claim to desire.
– While they bemoan the existence of ‘commercial operators producing disinformation on behalf of paying clients’ (p76), they disregard the fact that the government generously funds private companies to spread their state-sanctioned propaganda; one stark example is RICU’s longstanding collaboration with ‘Breakthrough Media’ (recently renamed the ‘Zinc Network’).
3. NO APPARENT RECOGNITION OF THE DUBIOUS ETHICS OF MANIPULATING CITIZENS’ BELIEFS
Another troubling feature of this paper is that the band of behavioural scientists who wrote it apparently have no qualms about our political elite censoring and shaping the thoughts of the people they were elected to serve. On the contrary, they urge the government to more rigorously control and regulate the information that citizens see. Stridently, the authors recommend more silencing, more smearing, more mind manipulation, and more extreme censorship measures.
Furthermore, there is repeated sanctioning of punitive and coercive actions within the guidance, targeting any information sources that deviate from the government-approved narratives. The authors’ plea for a comprehensive system of ‘cross-platform information integrity monitoring’ backed up by ‘enforceable frameworks … and meaningful actions’ conveys the authoritarian tone of the advisory manual.
Nowhere in the document is there any reflection about the ethical appropriateness of imposing these severe information-control strategies upon citizens living in a (purportedly) open society, thereby denying them the opportunity to access the full spectrum of opinion and make up their own minds about what is really going on in this crazy world. Undoubtedly, the state-funded technocrats – as the sole arbiters of truth – believe that they know what is best for us all, and therefore feel justified in treating the public like toddlers who can be hoodwinked into adopting the ‘right’ beliefs and behaviours.
4. A COMMITMENT TO GLOBAL INTERVENTIONS
For those of us concerned about a global technocracy incrementally gaining control over more and more aspects of our daily lives, the ‘False and Misleading Information’ document will be ominous reading.
References to one-world government institutions are repeated throughout the guidance, often as justification for a robust response to counter ‘misinformation’. Thus, the United Nations Global Risk Report (2024) is cited for its identification of ‘false and misleading information as the most prominent “global vulnerability”’ (p10). Similarly, the World Economic Forum is highlighted for its conclusion that misinformation is ‘a meta-risk … that does not operate in isolation but amplifies other major global threats by … impeding coordinated responses’ (p10).
And it is clear that the authors are pushing for global solutions for this assumed misinformation problem, deeming any national actions to be insufficient: ‘coordination is key across jurisdictions (including internationally)’. They recommend that a UK database of false and misleading narratives should ideally be ‘cross-linked to the EDMO data from across Europe’. (The EDMO is the ‘European Digital Media Observatory’, the European Union’s largest interdisciplinary network for countering misinformation). They go on to state, unequivocally, that ‘international cooperation is needed to address cross-border operations’ (p76).
It is apparent that – in true globalist tradition – these government advisors view national boundaries as a hindrance to their mission of imposing right-think upon the citizens of the UK.
