The EU, UN, WEF, and G20 all call on stakeholders to mitigate the harmful effects of disinformation that hinders their agendas — mostly without ever giving a single example: perspective
To monitor and detect disinformation, European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen urges the establishment of a “European Democracy Shield” while announcing the creation of a “European Center for Democratic Resilience” and a “Media Resilience Program.”
During the State of the European Union address on September 9, President von der Leyen declared, “Our democracy is under attack” due to the “rise in information manipulation and disinformation” that was “dividing our societies.”
She therefore urged the establishment of the three initiatives aimed at promoting “information integrity” in the European Union.
“This is why we urgently need the European Democracy Shield. We need more capacity to monitor and detect information manipulation and disinformation. So we will set up a new European Center for Democratic Resilience“
Ursula von der Leyen, State of the European Union, September 2025
President von der Leyen first called for the European Democracy Shield in July, 2024.
In December, 2024, the European Parliamentary Research Service published a briefing called “Information Integrity Online and the European Democracy Shield.”
The democracy shield initiative, according to the briefing, “links existing work to counter foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) with the implementation of key legislation and initiatives to boost the health of the information sphere.”
This includes:
- Regulation of online platforms and search engines in the Digital Services Act (DSA), including the 2022 strengthened code of practice to make online platforms do more to curb information manipulation and hate speech
- The work of the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) and its regional hubs.
- The AI Act, with its risk-based approach to regulating AI, including generative AI-facilitated information manipulation such as deepfakes, the European Media Freedom Act, and the Regulation on Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising.
Within the European Democracy Shield exists legislation like the EU Digital Services Act.
Within the EU Digital Services Act also exists the Age Verification Blueprint — also known as an “internet passport.”
According to the EC, “The age verification blueprint […] lays the groundwork for broader deployment of age-appropriate based services in the future and is built on the same technical specifications as the European Digital Identity Wallets (eID) that are to be rolled out before the end of 2026.”
“This ensures compatibility between the two and enables the integration of the age verification functionality in the future eID Wallets.”
Recently, the US House Judiciary Committee obtained documents from the European Commission exposing the DSA as a tool for censorship, where a sentence like “We need to take back our country” is considered to be “illegal hate speech.”
If platforms don’t comply with censorship recommendations from EC-approved NGOs and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), then the platforms can get fined up to six percent of their global earnings.
“In the EU, the broad concept of information integrity falls within the scope of the evolving European democracy shield idea […] The democracy shield initiative links existing work to counter foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) with the implementation of key legislation and initiatives to boost the health of the information sphere“
European Parliamentary Research Service, “Information Integrity Online and the European Democracy Shield,” December 2024
Getting back to the European Democracy Shield briefing, it lists several key tasks relating to so-called information integrity, including:
- Stepping up the fight against foreign information manipulation and interference;
- Coordinating the work on disinformation and working with other Commissioners to boost the work on digital and media literacy and on prevention through pre-bunking;
- Protecting integrity of elections;
- Working with Parliament and the Council to reach agreement on proposals still on the table, such as on European political parties and foundations;
- Implementing the European Media Freedom Act and putting forward proposals to further support and protect independent media and journalists, building on the work done to protect them from abusive lawsuits (SLAPPs)
Not once in the briefing is there any example of misinformation or disinformation.
“As well as calling for support for independent media, fact checkers and researchers, MEPs urged the Commission and the EEAS to consider creating a ‘European center for information integrity’ as a knowledge hub to facilitate and foster operational exchange between Member States’ authorities, EU institutions and EU agencies”
European Parliamentary Research Service, “Information Integrity Online and the European Democracy Shield,” December 2024
In her State of the European Union address, President von der Leyen also announced plans to create a European Center for Democratic Resilience as a means to monitor and detect misinformation.
Previously, this proposed center went under the working title of the “European Center for Information Integrity” that would act as a knowledge hub for EU agencies and member states, as well as provide support to unnamed media outlets and fact-checkers.
Everything is modeled on the the United Nations Global Principles for Information Integrity, which at their core, are all about advancing Agenda 2030.
According to the briefing, “The global principles stress that building up information integrity is essential to keep working towards the Sustainable Development Goals, and that this means fighting misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech while protecting human rights such as freedom of expression.”
“The first step in an autocrat’s playbook is always to capture independent media […] We will launch a new Media Resilience Program – it will support independent journalism and media literacy […] In the next budget, we have proposed to significantly boost funding for media”
Ursula von der Leyen, State of the European Union, September 2025
The third initiative on information integrity that von der Leyen mentioned was to launch a new “Media Resilience Program” to “support independent journalism and media literacy.”
She said that the EC will look to “significantly boost funding for media.”
“Informed citizens who can trust what they read and hear are essential to keep those-in-power accountable. And when independent media are dismantled or neutralized, our ability to monitor corruption and preserve democracy is severely weakened. This is why the first step in an autocrat’s playbook is always to capture independent media,” said von der Leyen.
In June of this year, the Hungarian Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) published a report by socialist journalist Thomas Fazi called “Brussels’s Media Machine: EU Media Funding and the Shaping of Public Discourse” alleging that EU institutions do not support independent journalism, but rather spend €80 million annually to promote pro-EU narratives.
“The EU’s close partnerships with media outlets and fact-checking organizations fundamentally undermine the credibility of its entire approach to disinformation.
Thomas Fazi, “Brussels’s Media Machine: EU Media Funding and the Shaping of Public Discourse,” June 2025
“When the same institutions that fund ‘anti-disinformation’ initiatives are also actively engaged in promoting their own narratives, often through publicly funded propaganda, a clear conflict of interest emerges“
“Over the years, the Commission has funded hundreds of initiatives, ranging from straightforward promotional campaigns to questionable ‘investigative journalism’ projects and sweeping ‘anti- disinformation’ efforts – all designed, explicitly or otherwise, to foster a media environment favorable to the EU’s political agenda”
Thomas Fazi, “Brussels’s Media Machine: EU Media Funding and the Shaping of Public Discourse,” June 2025
According to Fazi, “Many EU-funded media projects, even those ostensibly aimed at supporting pluralism and independent journalism, serve to elevate explicitly pro-EU platforms and amplify official narratives.
“Programs often claim to ‘promote European rights and values’ or ‘combat disinformation’, but behind these lofty buzzwords lies a clear strategic objective: to shape the public debate, marginalize dissenting voices and promote European integration.”
In the report Fazi questions:
- “How can fact-checking efforts claim neutrality or independence when they are bankrolled by political bodies like the European Commission – institutions with a vested interest in shaping public opinion? In such a framework, ‘disinformation’ becomes a convenient label for dissent, and ‘fact-checking’ risks functioning not as a safeguard for truth, but as a tool to police the boundaries of acceptable discourse.”
- To what extent can initiatives that involve close cooperation with political institutions – and depend on those institutions for funding – truly serve as neutral arbiters of truth?
- What happens when so-called ‘harmful narratives’ are, in fact, factually correct criticisms of EU institutions or policies?
- Where is the boundary between ‘disinformation’ and legitimate political dissent?
The report highlights areas where the “potential for conflict of interest is glaring” and how legitimate criticisms of EU policies can fall under the umbrella of “disinformation.”
“When media organizations receive funding from the European Commission to disseminate pro-EU content, while also participating in mechanisms designed to flag and counter disinformation, the potential for conflict of interest is glaring,” writes Fazi.
“In such a context, the authority to label certain viewpoints as disinformation – especially when exercised by entities closely tied to political institutions – risks becoming a mechanism for further homogenizing the narrative and even for outright censorship, rather than truth-seeking.”
“The notion of information integrity has been gaining ground in international and multilateral forums in recent years. Used by the United Nations (UN) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as a positive approach to a safely navigable information sphere with access to trustworthy information for all, the concept as understood by the UN and the OECD
European Parliamentary Research Service, “Information Integrity Online and the European Democracy Shield,” December 2024
emphasizes protecting freedom of expression”
Proponents of information integrity say it empowers the people, strengthens “our democracy,” and supports fact-based, independent journalism.
On the other hand, information integrity can also be interpreted as a tool for censorship and for crushing dissent by cracking down on what powerful institutions decide to be misinformation and disinformation.
Proponents of media literacy say its about educating the public to be skeptical, recognize biases, and know where their information is coming from.
On the other hand, media literacy can be construed as nudging the public to trust only pre-approved narratives from “authoritative” sources while labeling everything else as misinformation, disinformation, or hate speech.
In addition to the EU, crackdowns on disinformation under the banner of “information integrity” are supported promoted by global organizations like the United Nations, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the G20.
“All stakeholders should refrain from using, supporting or amplifying disinformation and hate speech for any purpose”
United Nations, “Global Principles For Information Integrity: Recommendations for Multi-stakeholder Action,” June 2024
In June, 2024, the UN published “United Nations Global Principles For Information Integrity: Recommendations for Multi-stakeholder Action,” which advises stakeholders to abstain from sponsoring or amplifying disinformation and hate speech, as if the two were indistinguishable from one another.
According to the document, “The Global Principles build on the ideas proposed in ‘Our Common Agenda’ and in the United Nations Secretary-General’s ‘Policy Brief 8: Information Integrity on Digital Platforms.'”
That policy brief, published in July 2023, set forth a “voluntary code of conduct” for all stakeholders to crush any narratives that could hinder progress on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), aka “Agenda 2030.”
In July 2025, the United Nations announced it was creating a taskforce to focus on the effects of what it considered 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 listed “mis- and disinformation” as the top vulnerability, mirroring that of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Risks reports over the past two years.
“Enforce proportionate, clear and consistent action against ‘super-spreaders’ of disinformation, including coordinated networks that operate within and between platforms […] Develop campaigns that ‘inoculate’ the public against persistent disinformation by exposing the tactics and motives behind misleading content“
WEF, “Rethinking Media Literacy: A New Ecosystem Model for Information Integrity,” July 2025
In July 2025, the WEF called on social media platforms and other stakeholders to inoculate the public against disinformation super-supers because individuals aren’t capable of assessing the credibility of information alone, according to a WEF report on media literacy.
With 175 mentions of the word “disinformation” and 49 mentions of “misinformation,” the report, “Rethinking Media Literacy: A New Ecosystem Model for Information Integrity,” never gives a single solitary example of disinformation or misinformation.
However, it does go into great detail on how public and private entities can control narratives under the guise of promoting “media and information literacy [MIL].”
When it comes to the dissemination of disinformation, the authors call on stakeholders to
- Enforce proportionate, clear and consistent action against “super-spreaders” of disinformation, including coordinated networks that operate within and between platforms. This should extend to advertisers as well as group admins
- Incorporate nudges – such as prompts encouraging users to verify information before sharing, or notifying them when they are about to engage with content flagged as misleading.
- Elevate trustworthy sources of information, including through partnerships between emergency responders and digital platforms.
- Develop campaigns that “inoculate” the public against persistent disinformation by exposing the tactics and motives behind misleading content.
- Partner with influencers and content creators who shape online discourse and drive engagement, ensuring that accurate information reaches audiences where they naturally consume news. These partnerships can help counter disinformation in a more organic and relatable way.
The EU, UN, WEF, and G20 all call on stakeholders to mitigate the harmful effects of disinformation that hinders their agendas without hardly ever giving a single example.
Image Source: European Parliament YouTube channel screenshot of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen delivering the State of the European Union address, September 9, 2025.
