The United Nations’ push for regulating disinformation raises serious concerns about who controls the flow of information and who decides what is true. The idea of centralized oversight for determining the legitimacy of ideas or facts runs counter to the very foundations of a free society, which thrives on open debate, freedom of expression, and the ability to question authority. If we allow global institutions to decide what is misinformation or disinformation, we risk empowering the same forces that have historically suppressed dissent to protect their interests.
The Dangers of Centralized Truth
The most troubling aspect of the UN’s stance is the assumption that a single governing body or group of elites can objectively decide what information is valid and what constitutes a threat to public discourse. But who will watch the watchmen? History has shown that when governments and large organizations are given control over what information the public is allowed to see, they frequently use this power not to protect the people but to protect themselves.
State-sponsored efforts to combat misinformation quickly become tools of censorship, with regimes suppressing any viewpoint that challenges the status quo. Take, for example, authoritarian governments where political dissent is labeled as “disinformation” or “harmful content,” and opposing voices are silenced under the guise of protecting national security or public order. This isn’t hypothetical; it happens today. When information is controlled from the top down, it is the ordinary citizen who suffers, stripped of the ability to make informed decisions or to challenge the narratives pushed by those in power.
The Role of Free Expression
In a truly free society, truth emerges through open dialogue and free competition of ideas. The answer to bad ideas is not less speech, but more speech. The solution to disinformation is not censorship; it’s giving people more access to information, along with the tools to critically evaluate it. Citizens need to be empowered to discern for themselves what is true, based on multiple sources and diverse perspectives.
When centralized entities—whether governments or international organizations—attempt to control what we see and hear, they are effectively acting as gatekeepers of knowledge. This monopoly on truth is dangerous not just because it stifles dissent, but because it assumes that the institution itself is immune from corruption or bias. However, no institution is infallible, and those tasked with controlling information have their own interests to protect.
Lessons from History
Throughout history, we have seen the dangers of giving any one entity too much power over information. Whether it’s the propaganda machines of past totalitarian regimes or the manipulation of media by corporate and political elites, the lesson is clear: free expression is essential to a functioning society. Without the freedom to challenge dominant narratives, the public is left vulnerable to manipulation and coercion.
The recent push by the UN to regulate disinformation echoes similar efforts seen in powerful tech companies partnering with governments to censor content on social media platforms. We saw this most clearly during the COVID-19 pandemic, when discussions about the origins of the virus, alternative treatments, and government responses were labeled as “misinformation” and quickly censored. Some of these viewpoints, initially silenced, have since been proven credible. The danger of suppressing ideas is that we don’t always know where the truth lies until it’s debated openly.
The Importance of Access to Information
Rather than limiting access to information or suppressing certain viewpoints, the focus should be on ensuring access to a wide range of perspectives. This is the only way a free people can engage with and challenge ideas, ultimately moving society toward truth.
It is not the role of governments or international bodies to act as arbiters of truth. Their job should be to protect the freedom of expression, not to determine which expressions are valid. Once we accept the idea that certain viewpoints can be suppressed for the “greater good,” we open the door to widespread censorship, manipulation, and ultimately, tyranny.
Conclusion
The United Nations’ stance on disinformation is deeply concerning because it threatens the very foundation of a free society—the free flow of ideas. Centralized control over information is not the solution to misinformation. The answer is more speech, not less. Individuals must be empowered to access and evaluate information on their own terms, without interference from governments or elite institutions seeking to protect their own narratives.
Freedom of speech is not just about allowing popular ideas to flourish; it’s about protecting the right to challenge authority and to question the dominant narratives of the day. A society that stifles free expression is one that is heading down the path of authoritarianism, and the UN’s efforts, if unchecked, could lead us there. Instead, let’s champion a world where open discourse and freedom of thought are protected above all else. Only then can we truly safeguard against disinformation.
