The Perils of Rebranding: From "Global Warming" to "Disinformation"
The ongoing debate within the tech community regarding the term "disinformation" mirrors a similar linguistic shift that occurred within the environmental movement two decades ago. In 2003, a leaked memo from Republican consultant Frank Luntz advised GOP politicians to abandon the term "global warming" in favor of "climate change." Luntz argued that the latter sounded less alarming and more manageable, enabling them to challenge the scientific consensus and undermine the growing influence of environmentalists. Alarmed by the potential loss of centrist voters following Al Gore’s 2000 presidential defeat, environmental groups surprisingly embraced the reframed terminology. This decision, driven by a fear of appearing out of touch, inadvertently weakened their message and eroded their hard-earned cultural capital.
The shift from "global warming" to "climate change" proved detrimental to the environmental movement on several fronts. The term "global" conveyed a sense of universal urgency and significance, while "warming" explicitly highlighted the imminent danger. In contrast, "climate change" lacked clarity and urgency. "Climate" is a broad and less tangible concept, and "change" carries a neutral connotation, implying potential positive outcomes as well. This semantic shift also obscured the causal link between human activity and environmental degradation, hindering efforts to hold polluters accountable. Furthermore, it erased years of public awareness-building by environmentalists who had successfully elevated global warming to a prominent political issue. The adoption of “climate change” ultimately diluted the potency of their message and diminished their political leverage, granting no tangible gains in bipartisan support.
Today, the term "disinformation" faces a similar challenge. Critics argue that it has become overly politicized and carries negative connotations. This “baggage” stems from the term’s association with efforts to expose the harmful practices of powerful actors, including tech CEOs, foreign influence campaigns, climate deniers, and election manipulators. Those engaged in this work have been targeted by political figures like Rep. Jim Jordan, who labels them as the "censorship industrial complex," and face legal challenges from individuals like Elon Musk. As a result, some in the tech community are exploring alternative terms such as "information integrity," "information sovereignty," or "ecosystem health."
While these alternative frameworks may appear less contentious, they suffer from the same drawbacks that plagued the environmental movement’s adoption of "climate change." These new terms lack the same level of public recognition and fail to directly implicate the individuals and organizations deliberately spreading misleading information. The very act of abandoning "disinformation," a term with a clear and established meaning, risks undermining the progress made in raising awareness about the threat it poses.
The term "disinformation" derives from Russian influence operations in the 1920s, referring to the deliberate dissemination of false information to manipulate public opinion. This definition aligns with the documented efforts of the fossil fuel industry to deceive the public about climate change. While simpler terms like "lies" exist, they fail to capture the coordinated and inauthentic nature of disinformation campaigns, which often amplify fringe voices and conceal their true motives.
Rebranding "disinformation" will not appease those who seek to undermine efforts to combat its spread. Rep. Jordan’s continued hearings, Elon Musk’s legal actions against critical nonprofits, and former President Trump’s attacks on media outlets demonstrate the futility of such a strategy. These are not mere debates about terminology but power struggles over control of information.
History provides another cautionary tale about the suppression of dissent against technological advancements. In the early 19th century, the Luddite movement in England protested against the rise of industrialization and its negative impact on working-class communities. The government responded with brutal repression, criminalizing Luddism and deploying military force to quell the uprisings. This historical example highlights the lengths to which powerful actors will go to protect their interests and silence those who challenge them.
Today, Big Tech oligarchs and political leaders pose a similar threat to free expression and access to information. Examples abound: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s cancellation of fact-checking programs and attempts to suppress critical reporting, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ influence on the Washington Post’s editorial stance, Elon Musk’s dismantling of Twitter’s trust and safety measures, and former President Trump’s interference in investigations into tech companies. These actions demonstrate a pattern of silencing dissent and manipulating information flows.
Instead of engaging in futile word games, advocates should focus on uniting the growing number of Americans who recognize the threat Big Tech poses to democracy, children’s safety, and societal cohesion. Abandoning the term "disinformation" would sacrifice the cultural capital built over the past decade and a half, hindering efforts to hold powerful actors accountable. While not perfect, "disinformation" serves as an effective gateway for discussing this complex issue. Just as the public understood the threat of global warming, they now recognize the dangers of disinformation. Capitulating on this issue would be a strategic blunder, allowing those who benefit from disinformation to silently celebrate its continued proliferation.
