Diagnosing Deception

Where does power lie?

With the king, who commands armies?

The merchant, who controls wealth?

The priest, who influences belief?

Each holds sway over society in their own way… But what if someone could shape perception of reality itself? What if they could make people believe the king is illegitimate, the merchant a fraud, the priest a heretic?

That is the power of propaganda.

Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

George Orwell – Politics and the English Language

Propaganda consists of any biased or misleading information used to deceptively promote a point of view; an intentional attempt to distort a proper understanding of reality. Such manipulation stands in direct opposition to the mission of HealthyDebate: to seek truth.

In the modern age, we are bombarded with propaganda more pervasive and sophisticated than ever before. We carry devices that expose us to it constantly. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement tailor propaganda to our individual preferences and biases. Deepfakes and selective editing now challenge even our ability to trust what we see and hear.

Others have described these problems in far more depth and detail than I can here. I am not looking to add another voice to that commentary. As a tech entrepreneur, I’d rather focus on building the solution.

HealthyDebate’s core function allows every claim to be linked to the definitive debate over that claim. This provides an unprecedented way to challenge falsehoods and base our understanding of reality on solid ground. But this alone is not enough to expose or counter propaganda.

One does not need to lie to mislead. Information can be selectively omitted, deceptively framed, or taken out of context. Someone can honestly say they’ve never lost a game of chess, while conveniently failing to mention they’ve never played one.

That’s why HealthyDebate will not only allow challenges to the truth of a claim, but also allow users to challenge a claim as misleading.

But challenging something as misleading is too broad; it would be like arguing whether someone is “unhealthy” without diagnosing the specific ailment. We need to identify which propaganda technique being used, so we can treat it effectively.

This is where the ‘Medi-Kit’’ comes in.

To challenge a misleading claim, users will choose from the Medi-Kit, a structured list of the many ways information can be used to mislead. For example:

• Omission of critical context
• Selective editing
• Loaded language
• Statistical manipulation

To return to the earlier example: If a user has evidence that no game of chess was ever played, they could challenge the statement as misleading. From the Medi-kit they would select “Omits Critical Information” to begin a debate over whether this source was misleading for this reason.

This structure enables the definitive debate over whether that source was guilty of any specific form of propaganda. The HealthyDebate framework offers depth without derailing discourse to enable unprecedented accountability.

It’s not enough to simply throw mud; unsubstantiated or weak challenges would be exposed through the rigour of healthy debate. In fact, this process may even strengthen and vindicate the original author.

Imagine a collective effort to expose propaganda wherever it appears. The Medi-Kit will equip users with the tools to do just that.

Debating Statements of Fact Vs Misleading Statements

The HealthyDebate framework enables every statement of fact to link to the definitive debate over that claim. Wherever that claim appears, the same debate follows.

Challenging a claim as misleading, however, is context specific. Propaganda often depends on the framing and presentation unique to each instance. Selective omission in one context may not apply in another.

What should be included in the Medi-Kit?

Propaganda takes many forms, some obvious, others subtle. Creating a truly comprehensive list is ambitious, and something I can’t achieve alone. That’s why I’m inviting contributions.

Together, we can crowdsource a living, evolving toolkit, a shared resource cataloguing the many ways information can be distorted.

To get started, I recommend reviewing this excellent list of fallacies from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
Many of these fallacies overlap with propaganda techniques.

Or an example thinking outside of the box: Clarity for one message, opacity for another.

In the spirit of Yes, Minister (one of the greatest comedies ever made) compare the difference in how the same message can be relayed:

• “He lied.”
• “It would appear, upon considered reflection and in the fullness of due deliberation, that the individual in question may have, perhaps inadvertently, permitted a certain divergence from the strictest interpretation of factual precision in their pronouncements, that, in certain lights, could be construed as less than wholly consonant with the unvarnished veracity one might ideally anticipate.”

Same claim. Completely different impact. That’s propaganda through linguistic gymnastics.

Propaganda loses its power when people can see it for what it is.
The HealthyDebate Medi-Kit will help us diagnose these tactics so we can treat them and restore healthy discourse.

This mission is far bigger than any one person. If you’re tired of propaganda polluting public discourse and value the search for truth, now is the time to act.

HealthyDebate.org is building the tools to fight back. But to succeed, we need your voice, your insight, and your support.

HealthyDebate.org is a not-for-profit organization, incorporated in Delaware to benefit from First Amendment protections.

It will apply for 501(c)(3) status so donations can be tax-deductible.
It will be crowdfunded to avoid even the perception of capture by special interests.

Impartiality is more than a principle. It’s a strategic necessity.
If we want everyone at the table, we have to build something that earns their trust.

The public crowdfunding campaign has not yet launched, and that’s intentional.

People are far more likely to donate when it is recommended by people they know and trust, when experienced leaders are involved, and when it shows clear signs of momentum. Before going public, the goal is to build a strong foundation by:

• Securing endorsements from respected voices across the political spectrum who are ready to publicly support the mission.
• Involving individuals committed to truth-seeking through open, civil debate with a proven record of success.
• Engaging people with influential platforms who are prepared to amplify the message.

Whether that means donating, (constructively) critiquing, connecting via social media, or getting involved, every contribution makes a difference and would be appreciated.

But most importantly I’d ask to please share this. It’s the only way a spark becomes a wildfire.

Or, at least, prepare your arguments. The debates that shape the future are coming.

Be part of the solution.
Be seen to be part of the solution.
Support HealthyDebate.org.