The Global Disinformation Index

The press is taking notice. 📰 Coverage of the federal court ruling staying the US travel ban that targeted GDI's CEO Clare Melford and other independent tech researchers is appearing in outlets around the world, from Ars Technica and Reuters to the Times of India. Our view at GDI: the global coverage of this ruling underscores what's at stake namely the right of researchers everywhere to study technology's impact on society without fear of government retaliation. As Clare told Ars Technica: 💬 "This is a victory for free speech and a defeat for those who fear it. GDI informs free market transactions in online advertising." Read the coverage: ▸ Ars Technica: https://lnkd.in/dUi85hY7 ▸ Reuters: https://lnkd.in/eKru2BZW ▸ Times of India: https://lnkd.in/dAiUY_Eq #FreeSpeech #FirstAmendment #Disinformation #TechResearch #CivilSociety

A milestone for free speech — and for GDI. 🎉 A US federal court has stayed the immigration policy used to ban our CEO and co-founder, Clare Melford, and other civil society leaders from travelling to the United States. Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia stayed the policy, halting its enforcement while the litigation proceeds. The policy had targeted noncitizen researchers, advocates, fact-checkers, and trust and safety professionals for visa denials, revocations, detention, and deportation on the basis of their work. Crucially, the ruling establishes that the activities cited by the government, including GDI's research and analysis, fall squarely under the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. As Clare put it: "This is a victory for free speech and a defeat for those who fear it. GDI informs free market transactions in online advertising. Banning me as CEO from travel to the United States was an unacceptable attempt by the government to censor me and interfere in the free market." The case, CITR v. Rubio, was brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and Protect Democracy on behalf of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research, of which GDI is a member. The court's stay is a significant milestone, but the litigation is ongoing and we will continue to stand with our partners and with researchers everywhere to defend the right to study the impact of technology on society, free from government intimidation. Read the Knight First Amendment Institute's press release on the ruling: https://lnkd.in/gby-DsWW Learn more about the case, CITR v. Rubio https://lnkd.in/e3-t_Kp9 #FreeSpeech #FirstAmendment #Disinformation #TechResearch #CivilSociety

🌍 Is the EU’s next MFF fit for CSO support? Last week in Brussels, Connecting Europe joined partners from across Europe for a civil society dialogue on the AGORA EU Programme, co-organised with the Atlantic Council’s Democracy + Tech Initiative, and the The Global Disinformation Index (GDI). Bringing together insights from national convenings across Member States, the discussion explored how civil society contributes to democratic resilience and digital sovereignty in the next EU budget (MFF 2028–2034). 💡 Key takeaways: • Civil society is playing an increasingly important role in areas such as disinformation monitoring, platform accountability, and democratic participation • National perspectives highlight different needs and priorities across Member States • Progress to advance the MFF negotiations in favour of CSO will depend on stronger coordination and coalition-building across countries and leverage national governments • Understanding democratic resilience in relation to broader EU priorities is becoming increasingly important ➡️ Want to know more? Check out the paper "The Case for Supporting Democratic Resilience How to structure the European Union’s Multiannual Financial Framework to meet the digital and democratic challenges of the next decade" by Mark Scott, Senior Resident Fellow, Atlantic Council's Democracy + Tech Initiative, here: https://lnkd.in/dpZURySe 🤝 A big thank you to all participants for a rich exchange, and to our co-organisers for bringing this community together.

If we want to disrupt information manipulation networks, we must follow the money Information manipulation scales through an operational environment: monetisation mechanisms, paid reach, and opaque ad-tech pathways that keep networks viable and replaceable at politically sensitive moments. Our new blogpost focuses on a practical question: where can the money flow be disrupted — and who has the visibility to act across platforms, intermediaries, and shifting domains? Key takeaways:  → In a hybrid threat context, defunding information manipulation and harmful content belongs within a broader resilience and deterrence agenda  → Monetisation functions as an enabling layer, even when campaigns are not primarily profit-driven.  → Paid amplification and engagement-optimised systems can boost manipulation at politically sensitive moments.  → Opacity in the ad ecosystem (intermediaries, inventory pooling, mirror sites) keeps the monetisation pipeline intact even when nodes are exposed.  → Counter-monetisation is a resilience lever, especially when demonetisation is paired with supply-chain mapping to disrupt recurring patterns upstream. Read the blogpost: https://lnkd.in/dzywkECf

If we are serious about tackling online harms and building democratic resilience in Europe, we must follow the money. The Atlantic Council's Democracy + Tech Initiative (DTI) has published a new paper drawing on national stakeholder workshops held across multiple EU member countries, which were organised by the DTI and The Global Disinformation Index. This research maps the financial architecture of the EU's next major funding cycle to ask whether it is fit for purpose. Read the full piece here: https://lnkd.in/eCnMG3tH

Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) now decide what counts as systemic risk research. The Digital Services Act promised researchers access to platform data to study information manipulation and harmful content. In practice, VLOPs decide which requests are approved, a structural conflict of interest. The #AI4TRUST consortium built detection infrastructure across text, image, audio, and video, yet access to the data needed to deploy it remained inconsistently granted and bureaucratically fraught. Information integrity should depend on independent scrutiny, not platform discretion.

Information manipulation pays, and the numbers are stark. GDI has just released its latest report: Monetisation of Harmful Content in the German Online Ecosystem. The headline finding? Creators of harmful German-language content spreading hate speech, civic manipulation, and pseudoscience can earn up to €15,000 per person/account per month through ads, subscriptions, donations, and merchandise. This isn't a bug in the system. It's a feature. Key takeaways from the report: → Financial incentives are actively sustaining and amplifying adversarial narratives across websites, social media, and messaging apps. → Major events like elections and geopolitical crises trigger engagement spikes and revenue surges for harmful content producers. → Existing legislation has significant gaps when it comes to addressing the monetisation of information manipulation. Information manipulation is an economic problem. Until the financial flows are disrupted, the content will keep coming.

EU tech regulation in 2026: From legislative ambition to enforcement reality. After years building the Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act, and AI Act, European regulators now face their biggest test— ensuring Big Tech compliance while navigating unprecedented external pressure. Our latest analysis examines three critical tensions shaping the year ahead: - Enforcement escalation – The Commission is pursuing substantial fines and potentially Google's adtech breakup, but can Brussels hold firm when Washington pushes back? - AI outpacing regulation – The AI Act was designed for narrow applications. 2026's reality involves disinformation at scale, AI-enabled child exploitation, and chatbots spreading climate denial. The gap is widening. - Regulatory power without tech sovereignty – Europe can write the rules, but remains dependent on foreign infrastructure. That dependency becomes leverage against enforcement in any serious confrontation. The key question: Ensuring a rights-first regulatory model can hold course against external pressures. 2026 will provide crucial answers. Read our full analysis https://lnkd.in/ehx_E8GG.

A powerful reminder from CAAD at #COP30 that climate progress depends on protecting information integrity. Disinformation stalls action and puts communities at risk. Strong regulation and coordinated response are essential.