The Dangers Of The War Against Disinformation

The disinformation label will continue to be bandied about, but what must remain clear is that it reflects the bias of those who are fundamentally on the opposite end of the political spectrum...

Disinformation has existed for as long as humans have sought to manipulate information, but the religious obsession with it by governments and mainstream media globally truly took off after Donald Trump’s unexpected victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Once it became clear that social media could influence electoral outcomes, those who believed Trump had leveraged disinformation to manipulate public opinion in his favour vowed it could never happen again. What would follow, as Afriforum Head of Public Relations Ernst van Zyl notes in a deeply insightful column for Politicsweb, is “the rise of extreme, widespread social media censorship”, the deplatforming of many individuals (including Trump himself), and a growing trend of arrests over social media posts in Western societies.

What had resembled success for a few years for the crusaders against disinformation quickly dissipated with billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now known as X) in October 2022, which they viewed as a major setback in the global campaign against disinformation and the use of social media to manipulate public opinion.

Musk moved swiftly to roll back censorship, restore some semblance of free expression, and reinstate many accounts - including Trump’s - that had been deplatformed over the years. He would also go on, crucially, to leverage his ownership of X - among other things - to play what many saw as a pivotal role in Trump’s reelection in November 2024.

Since then, the global campaign against disinformation appears to have reignited, with crusaders criticising Musk for being a purveyor of false information and making renewed calls for the regulation of social media, deplatforming, and the elimination of anonymity. Fortunately, Musk has not taken this lying down, and he continues to defend himself against what he perceives as a thinly veiled agenda of censorship.

South Africa’s information war

It is against this backdrop that the ongoing information war in South Africa, which involves Musk and several other actors, should be understood.

In this case, Musk, who is clearly despised by a segment of the ruling political elite and almost universally by the mainstream press establishment, is seen as an enabler and key supporter of a coordinated disinformation campaign by Afriforum (and, by extension, the Solidarity Movement) against the South African state.

Dr. Ernst Roets, Executive Director of Lex Libertas, is also seen as an ally of Afriforum and a central figure in this campaign.

At the centre of the campaign, allegedly, is the promotion of the narrative of a “genocide” against Afrikaners and their portrayal as a persecuted minority under a racist, oppressive regime that is expropriating their property. The consistent propagation of this narrative on X by Afriforum and Dr. Roets is perceived as a major driver of a broader “right-wing” onslaught by the Trump administration against the South African state that has contributed to a marked deterioration in the bilateral relationship between Washington and Pretoria.

Musk, yet again, is cast by critics as the chief culprit in this story who continues to leverage his platform, which has been described as a “sewer of disinformation”, to allegedly spread propaganda about “genocide”, amplify “falsehoods” about racist laws that prevent him from investing in South Africa, and exaggerate claims about the expropriation of property. His real motive with the algorithmic manipulation of X is presumed to be part of an insidious agenda to force his company Starlink into the country without complying with its laws. Starlink’s potential entry, one must add, is viewed as a serious national security threat.

Rise Mzansi National Leader and MP Songezo Zibi, in a series of pieces on disinformation, has argued that Starlink cannot be allowed into South Africa, labelling Musk a threat to democracy and doubling down on calls for social media regulation and the elimination of anonymity.

Disinformation and its discontents

It goes without saying that disinformation, in one sense, is real and can pollute the information space with far-reaching consequences. People lie and even go as far as running campaigns that use manufactured bots to discredit their enemies. What’s worth noting, however, is that disinformation comes from both sides of the political spectrum and not just one as some people would have others believe.

The lie about a “white genocide” - which is largely a talking point of the mainstream press establishment and has led to countless apologies to Afriforum - is just as real and dangerous as the lies that racist politicians in South Africa have freely spread about whites for years, ranging from them owning 80% of all the land to wanting to restore Apartheid.

Censorship is not the answer

But the solution is not to eliminate anonymity, which, among other things, plays a crucial role in repressive political contexts where revealing one’s real identity can be the difference between life and death. Nor is the solution to arrest people or to grant a disproportionate amount of regulatory power to a few individuals who can abuse it now or transfer it to future actors who could use it to censor their enemies.

The solution, as messy and chaotic as it is, is to let things be and allow people to discern truth from what they believe are lies. On a broader scale, the solution is to cultivate a society that is capable of critical thinking and realising that the REAL Nelson Mandela, for instance, did indeed leave Victor Verster prison in 1990, or that Burkina Faso’s President Ibrahim Traore is not the hero that propagandists are marketing him as.

Naturally, many people are not always going to get it right, but persuasion and competition in the marketplace of information are far better than regulation that can easily backslide into censorship.

The politics of disinformation

Having said that, disinformation, in another sense, is not a neutral descriptor of falsehoods, but a politically loaded term that reflects the bias of those who use it against others in an effort to discredit and ultimately censor them. Arguably, much of the global hullabaloo around it over the past decade or so - including in South Africa - comes down to people who want to censor their political opponents by accusing them of spreading blatant lies.

Challenging the white genocide accusation has become somewhat tiresome because some journalists, academics, politicians, and ordinary people are hellbent on misrepresenting a campaign they are convinced is merely an exercise in dog whistling. It would appear that some journalists, in particular, are unbothered by the now routine act of issuing apologies to Afriforum in the press for spreading DISINFORMATION.

Engaging them in the hope of making them see the issues at hand is simply a waste of time.

Advocacy and the reality on the ground

Afriforum and other actors should continue highlighting rural safety in their advocacy, which is important not just from the perspective of farmers, but also from the lens of food security. They should show how the South African government is failing not only to protect those who feed the country, but also its citizens at large, who are effectively living in a warzone.

Dr. Roets should continue posting images of the white crosses on social media. Critics will, of course, attack him as a propagandist, but anyone paying honest attention knows what those crosses symbolise and why they are being displayed.

There is a far more nuanced argument being made about racial discrimination, equality before the law, and the possibility of achieving the imperative of justice without turning the law into a tool of social engineering, but this argument will not be entertained by critics who have already decided that the entire project of “transformation” is being undermined by “right wingers”. Advocacy against race-based law should continue without being distracted by them.

The Expropriation Act is a serious threat and unlike any other expropriation mechanism in the world. Serious legal minds have already demonstrated this. But no amount of superior logic can persuade those who have made it their mission to defend government policy and argue that the views of politicians are being misrepresented. Property rights are the cornerstone of civilisation, and the ANC’s hostility towards them, in particular, must continue to be amplified.

The “Kill the Boer” chant and other hateful forms of violent political rhetoric should be despicable in a civilised society that is purportedly working towards fostering harmony and peaceful coexistence, but the constant refrain about struggle heritage and claims that “racists” are engaging in racist fearmongering will not stop. It should be insisted that such chanting and rhetoric are raising the political temperature in the country and laying the groundwork for further division and potential violence.

Musk is fabulously wealthy, and he certainly isn’t that desperate to get Starlink into a collapsing state with crisis-level unemployment. As someone born in South Africa, he naturally has an interest in the country and its politics, and he will - and should - continue criticising the South African government for not moving away from what he sees as an elite enrichment scheme in BEE.

He will, of course, be accused of lying about whites being barred from investing in the country, but anyone paying honest attention knows that a black owner of Starlink would have far easier access without having to subject their board to what amounts to a bizarre social engineering exercise.

The constant refrain about Starlink being a national security threat will not stop, but it is worth noting that little is said about X, which has already been widely embraced as a platform. Nor should it be forgotten that South Africa is already vulnerable to a range of threats - from the literal capture of the state by criminal networks to porous borders - yet comparatively little noise is being made about these. Instead, a conspiracy theory about a billionaire many people dislike is being ridiculously elevated into a matter of national security.

The ANC continues to mismanage DIRCO, with its most recent blunder being the antagonising of Ambassador Bozell, who is firm on key issues but open to dialogue. It will continue to flirt with rogue states and engage in a laughable skirmish with a global power that is far more preoccupied with retaining its position as a leader in the global system.

And yet it will not stop drumming on about how disinformation being fed to Trump is responsible for the strained relationship between Washington and Pretoria. Advocacy against an overtly partisan and misguided foreign policy that threatens the national interest must continue without hesitation.

The cost of silence

In short, advocacy on the aforementioned issues must continue without apology or retreat. It is ultimately the people of South Africa - and not critics who form part of an elite - who will decide what to believe and what to reject. In this regard, those critics are also free to continue advancing their narrative. The information environment is a contested terrain where competing narratives must be allowed to clash.

The disinformation label will continue to be bandied about, but what must remain clear is that it reflects the bias of those who are fundamentally on the opposite end of the political spectrum and who believe that false information is being spread.

The obsession with disinformation has unfortunately taken root locally, and it could have serious implications for governance in the near future. If those who oppose it are granted the power to regulate social media, eliminate anonymity, and identify people to be doxxed, they will almost certainly do so and erode free expression.

Much of Western Europe has already moved in that direction, and the South African government, which is known for taking cues from global institutions, can reasonably be expected to follow suit. It is therefore necessary for those who believe in free expression, regardless of their political views, to recognise the threat lurking beneath the hullabaloo around disinformation and respond accordingly.

Freedom rarely disappears overnight, and its true price is eternal vigilance. If silence is chosen in this case because the freedoms at stake belong to people we dislike, it must be remembered that this ultimately endangers everyone. It is only a matter of time before those who wield enormous power turn it on others.

Ayanda Sakhile Zulu holds a BSocSci in Political Studies from the University of Pretoria and is a Policy Officer at the Free Market Foundation.