Addressing disinformation has little to do with getting to the truth and everything to do with controlling narratives that could impede progress on UN Agenda 2030: perspective
The United Nations is creating a taskforce that will focus on the effects of what it considers to “be mis- and disinformation” about the globalist organization’s ability to deliver on its mandate.
The announcement to create the disinformation taskforce was buried deep within the United Nations first-ever “Global Risk Report,” which lists “mis- and disinformation” as the top vulnerability, mirroring that of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Risks reports for the past two years.
But as we comb through documents and speeches from the UN, we find that addressing misinformation and disinformation has little to do with getting to the truth and everything to do with controlling narratives that could impede progress on the UN’s work.
Enter the new “task team” to “focus on the effects of mis- and disinformation on the United Nations mandate delivery.”
“The Secretary-General commits to: immediately create a task team to strengthen the United Nations System’s capacity to address risks in the information ecosystem.
United Nations, Global Risk Report, July 2025
“The team will focus on the effects of mis- and disinformation on United Nations mandate delivery, including through research, risk assessment and response strategies”
The UN defines a global risk as “an event or condition that would have a significant negative impact on a large portion of humanity and ecosystems.”
However, the Global Risk Report doesn’t say anything about the new disinformation taskforce helping “a large portion of humanity.”
Instead, this new “task team” will focus on “risks in the information ecosystem” and “the effects of mis-and disinformation on United Nations mandate delivery,” which basically means it will try to stamp out any information that slows the UN’s progress.
And what is at the top of the UN’s mandate? The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), aka “2030 Agenda,” or “Agenda 2030.”
In other words, the UN is implying that any information that impedes the delivery of its Agenda 2030 mandate is considered to be misinformation or disinformation.
“One vulnerability clearly stands out: mis- and disinformation. It is perceived as an extremely important risk for which the international community is not prepared, with the potential to exacerbate geopolitical tensions, societal discord and crisis response challenges”
United Nations, Global Risk Report, July 2025
“We commit by 2030 to promote evidence gathering by UN entities in collaboration with governments and relevant stakeholders, on the impact of mis- and disinformation on the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 17)”
UN Global Digital Compact Draft, July 2024
As you may recall, last year the UN held the Summit of the Future in order to accelerate progress on the SDGs.
At that event, UN member states signed the “Pact for the Future,” which included the “Global Digital Compact,” which called on nations to “foster an inclusive, open, safe and secure digital space,” which has no place for what the UN considers mis-and disinformation.
And that’s what this new disinformation taskforce is about, a continuation of the “Pact for the Future” and the “Global Digital Compact” to quash any narratives that may impede upon the UN’s mandate delivery — Agenda 2030.
The Global Digital Compact “calls for an assessment of the impact on mis — and disinformation on the Sustainable Development Goals”
Melissa Fleming, G20 Leaders Summit, November 2024
Speaking at the G20 Rio Summit in 2024, UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa “We Own the Science” Fleming highlighted that part of the “Global Digital Compact” called for an assessment on the impact of mis- and disinformation on the SDGs.
Fleming claimed that climate disinformation was “powered by special interests” and “deceptive advertising” who were looking “to obstruct the energy transition,” who were “seeking to deny scientific facts,” who were “eroding trust in climate science and solutions while harassing the very people who are trying to bring those facts.”
She also lamented that journalists, scientists, and climate activists were under attack for pushing UN-approved climate narratives.
The crackdowns on mis- and disinformation always lead back to narratives about the UN and its SDGs.
The G20 Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change “responds to the commitment in the Global Digital Compact, adopted by United Nations Members States at the Summit of the Future in September 2024, which encourages UN entities, in collaboration with Governments and relevant stakeholders, to assess the impact of mis- and disinformation on the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals”
G20 Leaders Summit, November 2024
In 2023, the UN put out a “Voluntary Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms” that shows, in oh so many ways, that “information integrity” has little to do with honest and open debate, and everything to do with crushing any dissent regarding Agenda 2030.
To give you an idea of the sheer size and scope to which the UN wishes to eradicate anything it deems “mis- and disinformation,” here are a few policy recommendations taken from the “Towards a United Nations Code of Conduct” that calls-on not just member states, but private groups such as stakeholders (i.e. NGOs, businesses, academia, etc.), digital platforms, advertisers, and news media to do the UN’s bidding:
- All stakeholders should refrain from using, supporting or amplifying disinformation and hate speech for any purpose.
- All stakeholders should allocate resources to address and report on the origins, spread and impact of mis- and disinformation and hate speech, while respecting human rights norms and standards and further invest in fact-checking capabilities across countries and contexts.
- All stakeholders should promote training and capacity-building to develop understanding of how mis- and disinformation and hate speech manifest and to strengthen prevention and mitigation strategies.
- All stakeholders should take urgent and immediate measures to ensure the safe, secure, responsible, ethical and human rights-compliant use of artificial intelligence and address the implications of recent advances in this field for the spread of mis- and disinformation and hate speech.
- Member States should ensure public access to accurate, transparent, and credibly sourced government information, particularly information that serves the public interest, including all aspects of the Sustainable Development Goals.
- Member States should invest in and support independent research on the prevalence and impact of mis- and disinformation and hate speech across countries and languages, particularly in underserved contexts and in languages other than English, allowing civil society and academia to operate freely and safely.
- Digital platforms and advertisers should ensure that advertisements are not placed next to online mis- or disinformation or hate speech, and that advertising containing disinformation is not promoted.
- Digital platforms should ensure meaningful transparency regarding algorithms, data, content moderation and advertising.
- Digital platforms should publish and publicize accessible policies on mis- and disinformation and hate speech, and report on the prevalence of coordinated disinformation on their services and the efficacy of policies to counter such operations.
- Digital platforms should ensure the full participation of civil society in efforts to address mis- and disinformation and hate speech.
- News media should ensure that all paid advertising and advertorial content is clearly marked as such and is free of mis- and disinformation and hate speech.
You may have noticed that the UN — and Melissa Fleming in particular — loves to conflate misinformation and disinformation with hate speech, so that they become indistinguishable.
For example, last month, Fleming spoke at the UN International day for Countering Hate Speech where she lamented that false and hateful information were undermining the UN’s work.
“AI is being misused to create and disseminate false and hateful information at scale […] It’s also undermining the work of UN agencies as false information spreads about our intentions and the work that we do”
Melissa Fleming, UN International Day for Countering Hate Speech, June 2025
For years Fleming has been frequently flaunting UN efforts to crackdown on so-called hate speech and mis- and disinformation, for which neither she nor the UN hardly ever give any specific examples of what those actually are.
For example, she bragged to the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2022 that the UN partnered with Google to artificially manipulate search results about “climate change” and that the UN partnered with TikTok to inflate traffic towards UN-approved scientists about COVID and climate.
At a Summit of the Future side event in September 2024, Fleming admitted that the UN was exhausted going after disinformation and hate speech.
She appeared frustrated and genuinely surprised that people didn’t trust unelected globalist narratives.
“Disinformation and hate speech have always existed,” said Fleming, adding, “but I have never been in a situation of having to try to communicate in an environment that is so toxic and is actively working against the forces for good.
“We had no choice as the UN but to start to take action.”
Once again, there is no line between disinformation and hate speech, and the only thing the UN cares about is how certain information can hinder Agenda 2030.
“We discovered along the way that UN content was being downranked on the very platforms that we thought were big opportunities to reach people far and wide”
Melissa Fleming, The Future of Information Integrity and the SDGs, September 2024
“We now have to communicate in a way that is going to not just break through the noise but also navigate through the disinformation and the hate”
Melissa Fleming, The Future of Information Integrity and the SDGs, September 2024
Also at the Summit of the Future, Fleming said it was her responsibility to “inform the world about the state of the world,” such as about “the data around climate change.”
She was disappointed that people weren’t buying what she was selling, even to the extent that big tech platforms were downranking UN narratives, which she attributed to disinformation and hate speech.
“In a way we just became so exhausted by it. Why are we doing this? We even discovered along the way that UN content was being downranked on the very platforms that we thought were big opportunities to reach people far and wide,” she added.
After all the speeches, the summits, the compacts and pacts calling to crush dissenting narratives — the UN announced the creation of a disinformation taskforce in just two sentences buried in a blurb on page 37 of its inaugural Global Risk Report.
“Misinformation and Disinformation: False or misleading information, with misinformation being inaccuracies spread without harmful intent, and disinformation being intentionally false or deceptive information circulated with the aim of causing harm or manipulating perceptions“
United Nations, Global Risk Report, July 2025
Scrolling to the bottom of the UN Global Risk Report, we see a definition for “misinformation and disinformation.”
We see terms like “inaccuracies,” “harmful intent,” “deceptive information,” “causing harm,” and “manipulating perceptions.”
But who determines what is accurate or not? The UN?
Causing harm to whom? To we the people, or to the unelected globalists?
Intentionally false or deceptive information? Does that only apply to the opposition, or can the UN be guilty of that as well?
And finally, if you were trying to be the global authority on worldly affairs, wouldn’t you, too, say that those who spoke truth to power would be “manipulating perceptions” against you?
The UN Secretary-General has now committed to “immediately” creating a disinformation taskforce — something that failed to take-off in the US with its proposed Disinformation Governance Board.
We shall see what recommendations this taskforce makes, and whether they’ll be rejected by member states or signed with unanimous consent at some special summit in the not-too-distant future.
Image Source: AI generated using Grok
