The United Nations has unveiled its first Global Risk Report, placing what it terms “mis- and disinformation” among the most serious threats facing the world.
Tucked into the report is the announcement of a new task force, formed to address how unauthorized narratives might disrupt the UN’s ability to carry out its programs, particularly its centerpiece initiative, the 2030 Agenda.
Rather than encouraging open discourse or transparency, the organization has taken a route that centers on managing what information gets seen and heard.
While the language used suggests a concern for public welfare, the actual emphasis lies on shielding the UN’s agenda from interference.
According to the report, survey respondents that included member states, NGOs, private companies, and other groups overwhelmingly called for joint government action and multistakeholder coalitions to deal with the highlighted risks.
Yet there is no clear endorsement of more open communication or free expression. The dominant solution appears to be top-down control over public narratives.
This newly established task force has a single focus. Its job is to assess how so-called mis- and disinformation affect the UN’s ability to deliver on its goals.
The report does not describe how this benefits the public or strengthens democratic values. Instead, the team’s mission is about insulating UN operations from disruption, particularly as they pertain to the Sustainable Development Goals.
The SDGs, which make up the foundation of the 2030 Agenda, touch nearly every aspect of governance and development, from climate to education to healthcare.
This is not the UN’s first attempt to regulate the global conversation. In 2023, it issued the Voluntary Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms.
While promoted as a guide to promote factual accuracy, the document outlines an expansive system of content filtering and narrative enforcement. It encourages a wide range of actors, including governments, tech firms, news organizations, and advertisers, to work together in silencing content.
Among its recommendations are stricter algorithmic control, refusal to advertise next to flagged content, and large-scale fact-checking programs. Training and capacity-building are suggested not to foster critical thinking but to reinforce a shared understanding of what constitutes unacceptable speech.
