The Hague – The Dutch Cabinet has formally recognized the fight against LGBTQIA+ disinformation as a crucial part of national emancipation policy. In a new Emancipation Memorandum sent to the House of Representatives on September 14, 2026, the government explicitly cites the BENEDMO fact-checking campaign on LGBTQIA+ disinformation as one of the concrete actions in its broader strategy to guarantee freedom, equality, and safety for all. The memorandum, which lays out the Cabinet’s vision for the coming years, states that women and LGBTQIA+ people do not always feel safe and that they experience these fundamental values coming under pressure in their daily lives. By including an independent digital media monitoring and fact-checking initiative in an official government policy document, the Cabinet has signaled that online harm, deceptive narratives, and disinformation are not merely technological problems but are intimately connected to the physical safety, mental health, and social standing of vulnerable communities. The move marks a notable shift in how emancipation policy is understood, as digital spaces are now framed as central arenas where equality and freedom must be actively defended.
BENEDMO, the Belgian-Dutch network that is one of the fifteen hubs of the European Digital Media Observatory, has spent years monitoring, debunking, and raising awareness about disinformation across both countries. The organization works with universities, media outlets, journalists, and civil society groups to identify false and misleading claims before they can take root. The fact-checking campaign referenced in the Cabinet memorandum is specifically focused on LGBTQIA+ topics, targeting a growing ecosystem of harmful content online that includes false claims about gender-affirming healthcare, the alleged “recruitment” of children through inclusive education, the criminalization of rainbow symbols, and the framing of any LGBTQIA+ visibility as a threat to religious freedom or family values. Such disinformation has real-world consequences, as it contributes to prejudice, harassment, and violence. The Cabinet’s decision to name the BENEDMO campaign in the emancipation memorandum is therefore not a small symbolic footnote but a practical acknowledgement that fact-checking and media literacy are essential parts of an effective equality agenda. By anchoring this campaign in government policy, the memorandum gives critical work more visibility and legitimacy in the public debate.
The inclusion of BENEDMO within the Emancipation Memorandum is also significant because of what it reveals about the current state of online discourse in the Netherlands and Belgium. Disinformation targeting LGBTQIA+ people has been rising across Europe, driven by coordinated political campaigns, partisan media ecosystems, and the algorithmic amplification of outrage. Many of the most dangerous narratives do not appear explicitly hateful at first glance; instead, they are wrapped in concerns about children’s safety, parental rights, scientific debate, or religious tolerance. For example, false claims that healthcare professionals are “mutilating” minors or that schools are “sexualizing” children have been used to justify threats against clinics, teachers, drag performers, and elected officials. These narratives often originate in marginal online spaces but are rapidly shared into mainstream platforms, becoming part of the everyday information diet of millions of citizens. The BENEDMO campaign responds by systematically monitoring these claims, tracing their spread, exposing the lack of evidence behind them, and providing accurate information in accessible formats. In its pioneering work, BENEDMO has shown that debunking a single claim is not enough; it is just as important to explain the techniques of disinformation and to build resilience among audiences so that they can recognize manipulation attempts.
For the Dutch Cabinet, including the BENEDMO campaign is part of a wider recognition that emancipation policy must be redefined for an era of digital socialisation. Traditional instruments such as anti-discrimination legislation, public awareness campaigns, and support services remain essential, but they are no longer sufficient if large numbers of people consume and believe misleading narratives online. The memorandum outlines concrete actions to reinforce safety, including support for civil society organisations that protect the rights of women and LGBTQIA+ people, investment in accessible help desks and safe spaces, and a commitment to make online platforms more accountable for the spread of harmful content. In this context, the BENEDMO campaign serves as an example of how independent fact-checking can complement government action. It does not replace journalism or activism, but it provides an evidence-based check on falsehoods. The Cabinet appears to understand that the credibility of government communication depends on independent scrutiny, and that by cooperating with a non-governmental hub, it avoids the accusation that information is being manipulated by the state. The memorandum thus treats fact-checking as a public good, comparable to the promotion of literacy or public health awareness, and not as a propaganda tool.
The decision has been met with considerable attention in Brussels as well, since BENEDMO operates as part of the European Digital Media Observatory network, an initiative supported by the European Commission. The other fourteen EDMO hubs, spread across different regions and member states, are monitoring disinformation on various subjects, but the explicit integration of an EDMO hub’s campaign into a national government’s official emancipation strategy is a remarkable development. It demonstrates how the fight for equal rights and the fight against disinformation are becoming intertwined. European institutions have long warned that disinformation poses a fundamental threat to democratic resilience, social cohesion, and public health, but the connection to gender equality and LGBTQIA+ rights has until recently been less prominent. The Dutch Cabinet’s memorandum may therefore encourage other governments to take similar steps, prompting greater support for fact-checking organisations and for coordinated research into the ways disinformation accelerates discrimination. In an era of deep uncertainty, when populist movements across the continent are using anti-gender and anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric as a rallying cry, the Dutch example offers a practical model for responding not with censorship but with truth, transparency, and trust in public institutions.
Looking ahead, the inclusion of the BENEDMO campaign in the Emancipation Memorandum is only the beginning of what needs to become a sustained effort. The memorandum itself acknowledges that women and LGBTQIA+ people continue to experience unsafe situations and daily pressure on their freedoms, and the authors of the document appear aware that one campaign cannot undo the accumulated effects of years of disinformation. Still, the policy signal is unmistakable: the digital world is no longer a sphere that can be treated as separate from real life, and any serious commitment to equality and safety must include a serious commitment to monitoring, exposing, and correcting falsehoods. For BENEDMO, the recognition from the Cabinet is both an honour and a challenge. It will need to continue its work independently, without letting government endorsement compromise its credibility, and it will need to expand its efforts to ensure that fact-checking reaches not only those who are already open to evidence but also those who are exposed daily to conspiracy theories and manipulative narratives. The road ahead is long, and online platforms continue to change their rules and algorithms, but with institutional recognition, better cross-border cooperation, and greater public awareness, the alliance between fact-checking and emancipation is likely to grow stronger. The Cabinet’s memorandum, by placing the BENEDMO campaign at the center of its strategy, has made a quiet but powerful declaration: disinformation about LGBTQIA+ people is not an acceptable price of digital life, and protecting every person’s freedom and safety means also defending the truth.
