The UK Disinformation Complex.
The Control of Information. How the rich and powerful shape the media and control your mind. By Dr. Judith Brown.
The British Government Part 4.
Fact Checking in the UK and the role of academia.
“You don't need to wait decades to have disinformation beamed into your head. You just need a constant stream of misleading information, half-truths, and fictions to be promoted, pushed, and peddled until they are accepted as fact.” Nick Turse.
The UK disinformation industry.
Looking at the UK Fact checking activities outside the government and mainstream media, a preliminary investigation found seven universities, six non-governmental organisations (NGO) and think tanks, seven media-associated fact check platforms, seven independent fact check platforms, including profit, not-for-profit organisations and charities, plus the British-based Online Safety Tech Industry Association (OSTIA); amongst its members are 16 tech companies that produce products which can be used to screen the internet for content moderation purposes [1] here. OSTIA members all have a presence in UK, but some are hubs of international companies. Another British tech company, Faculty, has British government contracts associated with ‘online harms’ [2] here but is not a member of OSTIA. This demonstrates that the tech industry in UK has developed a significant role in supporting the censorship industry.
Academia.
Almost certainly many UK universities have links with the disinformation industry, and the following examples were found in an internet search. Bath University is part of the European Media and Immersion Lab (EMIL) [3] here; EMIL is funded by the European Union (EU) and Innovate UK and develops new fact checking technologies and provides grants for fact checking and media literacy groups. Interesting, since Brexit, some EU disinformation complex projects now have funding from the UK through Innovate UK, a UK government funded NGO that describes itself as an innovation agency. Cardiff University’s Countering Disinformation Project [4] here analyses disinformation reporting and audience responses. Cardiff is also a partner of the Institute of Strategic Dialogue [5] here, a British think tank heavily linked to intelligence services and the censorship industry. The University of Cambridge’s Social Decision-making Lab (CSDL) is a leading light in the Media Literacy industry. It works with UK and US governments and global institutions, ‘pre-bunking’ and ‘inoculating’ trainees against disinformation [6] here. This type of psychological operation that shapes minds so that trainees then only accept a particular style of discourse is concerning. The University of Lincoln is part of the EU funded EUfactcheck.EU [7] here that trains journalism students in fact checking, in line with EU policies. Oxford Internet Institute (OII) website describes non-mainstream media outlets that take an independent line as “junk news” [8] here. The reality is that many mainstream journalists who were frustrated with restrictions now work independently, funded by their audiences and readers, and often produce high quality reports. Investigations into the funding of what OII called ‘anti-vax’ groups is posted on its website, this investigation revealed that the income of such groups is usually limited to subscriptions or selling merchandise, but this is significant to those whose aim is to demonetarise and defund opposing voices. Ironically, OII’s own funding includes large corporations and philanthropists that also fund platforms that moderate content [9] here. Sheffield University is a large player in the control of information; it has a natural language processing unit that investigates the properties of human language, and the intelligent processing of language [10] here. Sheffield is also a member of EDMO Ireland (the European Digital Media Observatory) [11] here. The EDMO is an extensive organisation funded by EU that has a range of fact checking functions; these will be revealed in a later chapter. Sheffield is also a member of the EU funded Vera.ai [12] here, part of the EU counter-disinformation research project. Sheffield also partners with the for-profit fact check platform Logically to address ‘multi-media based misinformation and hate speech detection’ [13] here. The University of Southampton has an IT Innovation Centre that contributed to the Reveal Project [14] here, another part of the EU funded counter-disinformation project, although it is no longer listed on the Reveal website as a current participant.
In the US, American universities involvement in censorship and propaganda programmes has been extensively explored, whereas in UK and Europe no major investigations were found. Hence, this is an area worthy of more research, as some academic voices have expressed concern as restrictions on academic freedom increase [15] here. In the UK, following the election of the Labour Party in July 2024, a bill proposing protection of academic freedom was halted by the incoming administration.
Nonetheless, this preliminary search demonstrates the range of disinformation-industry activities which are now a regular part of British universities’ activities, from which they derive income. Whilst this does not prove that British universities are captured by those who fund censorship projects, it reveals a concerning trend. One academic told me that his university accepted government funding to investigate disinformation, even though staff were aware that historically, governments have produced most of the circulating disinformation. Inevitably, accepting grants and funds for developing censorship tools and systems will narrow debate within the academic world. This will not only apply to the issue of censorship itself, but also on other topics which have previously been subject to wider debate. The links with EU funded projects also demonstrates that close ties between UK and EU censorship regimes exist, although UK has ostensibly left the EU.
Fact checking in the mainstream media.
An earlier article explored the significant role of the BBC in the censorship industry, but other UK media outlets also have adopted fact checking roles. This includes Channel 4 Fact Check, the UK branch of Reuters Fact Check, The Conversation Fact Check UK, a conglomerate of 26 media companies called PA Media Fact Check, and Ferret Fact Check Services, associated with a community newspaper in Scotland. Fact checking occurs before publication or broadcasting, but some also have a fact check page on their website. Most media linked fact check platforms worldwide, including in UK, have very little information about their operations and funding on their website, but it is assumed that the media owner funds fact checking operations. One of these media outlets with fact check platforms, Reuters, was subcontracted to Meta, joining Facebook’s Third-Party Fact Check Program (FB3PFCP), paid for moderating Facebook content in UK. The future of this programme is in doubt since Meta has announced the withdrawal of its FB3PFCP, and it is unclear how or when it will be replaced at time of writing. Reuters and Ferret Fact Check services are verified signatories of the IFCN Code.
Independent British fact check platforms.
Full Fact.
Full Fact was co-founded in 2010 by the Hon. Michael Samuel, son of Peter Samuel the 4th Viscount of Bearsted, and an executive of the oil company Shell. Michael Samuel is described as a philanthropist, who socialises with members of the royal family [16] here. He remains the chair of the Full Fact Board of Trustees in 2025. Another member of the board is Clare Wardle, the founder of First Draft (now moved to the Information Futures Lab, Brown University) who authored the foundational report for the EU, Information Disorder: an Interdisciplinary Framework for research and Policy for the Council of Europe. Wardle also developed an organisation wide training programme for the BBC on verification and countering disinformation [17] here. Other board members are from the great and good, including a Principal of an Oxford College, members of the House of Lords, and the head of a new and rapidly growing media group with billionaire backers, Tortoise Media.
Full Fact is registered as a charity and like most fact check platforms its income is mainly derived from generous donations from large foundations and the IFCN, plus grants and earnings from big tech giants; recent income is between £2-2.5 million per annum. A minor part of its income is derived from small charitable donations. According to an article in The Critic, Full Fact executives earn more than most journalists [18] here.
American journalist Matt Taibbi, who investigated correspondence between social media and the American government after these documents were released by the new owner of Twitter in 2022, states that Full Fact has been explicit in its collaboration with big tech [19] here. For example, in a Twitter Files email, Full Fact was shown to have been working with Facebook, Google, Twitter, First Draft, and the UK and Canadian governments to create a Framework for Information Incidents. On Full Fact’s website this is described as a tool to help assess incoming information crises. Other collaborators in this project included First Draft, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Ben Nimmo (NATO), Graphika, Facebook, and the Shorenstein Center.
Full Fact is a verified signatory to the IFCN Code, it is currently a third-party fact checker for Facebook, and also a member of the European Fact Check Standards Network (EFCSN). Looking at checks on Full Fact’s website, on hot button topics, FullFact closely follows government narratives. One example is the criticism of Andrew Bridgen MP who was calling on the government to in investigate the rise in excess deaths after the roll out of the Covid vaccine [20] here. Full Fact was instrumental in getting this British member of parliament removed from the Conservative Party [21] here.
Another example: the independent media platform UK Column (UKC) covered a court case in which important legal procedures were omitted making it a ‘secret court process’. However, Full Fact labelled the UKC accurate report as a ‘conspiracy theory’. UKC stated that Full Fact’s position may have been compromised by the interests of their funders [22] here.
Fact Check NI.
Fact Check NI operates in Northern Ireland as a not-for-profit limited company. On its website its turnover was stated to be £83,531 for the year ending April 2023. Its income is from charitable trusts, statutory bodies, and donations. It has also received funding from European Commission (EC) and the Irish government. Its website states Fact Check NI works in schools and local community environments to improve ‘critical thinking skills’, i.e., it operates a media literacy campaign. It is also a part of the EDMO Ireland, funded by EU. It is a signatory of the IFCN, and took part in its Covid-19 fact check project, the Corona Virus Facts Alliance (CVFA), and has been contracted as a third-party fact checker for Meta. Despite these activities, it is still a comparatively small platform [23] here.
Logically.
The founder and CEO of Logically is Lyric Jain, born in India, who moved to UK aged 12 and studied at Harvard, Cambridge, and MIT. In 2020 he was selected for the Forbes Under 30 Europe list of young entrepreneurs. At MIT he first started developing tools to navigate the information landscape, which led to the development of the Logically company [24] here.
The UK for-profit fact check platform Logically is a global player. It was launched in Yorkshire in 2017, and considered to be one of the 100 most promising artificial intelligence companies in the world [25] here. Logically was until recently based in UK and India but has changed its head office location to Ireland. However, as it has for many years been a British fact check platform and it still influences UK censorship procedures, it is analysed in the UK section. For example, Logically submitted an opinion the UK government when it was collecting evidence during the progress of the Online Safety Bill [26] here (now the Online Safety Act). Logically has 181 staff, 32 dedicated to fact checking, international team who speak a wide range of languages [27] here.
Looking at IFCN registered fact check platforms, Logically is one of the few that openly operate for profit. Logically has two departments, one being Logically Intelligence that undertakes activities linked to surveillance and intelligence operations. Those who purchase these services are named as governments, law enforcement, defence and national security, election officials, public health, and businesses. One example are contracts with the British government worth £1,264,000 [28] here (pp6-7). Following the placement of these contracts, the Health Advisory Research Team (HART) had its members’ chat box illegally hacked by Logically. Content was then distorted in order to smear HART and its members [29] here.
The other department is Logically Accelerate (previously called Logically Facts) that develops fact check tools and provides fact checking services in multiple languages and global locations [30] here. Logically partners with Facebook as a third-party fact checker, and has worked with Sheffield University and Indian universities in its research activities. Logically also joins with Facebook to carry out media literacy programmes [31] here.
Logically is closely associated with Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). In 2022 it recruited an IFCN executive, Barbars Orsek to head its fact check programme [32] here. Logically was also a sponsor of IFCN’s annual conference, Global 10 Summit, in 2023 [33] here. Despite being a verified signatory of the IFCN, Logically does not give details of its funders on its website, as required by the IFCN code. However, in 2022 Logically announced that it had achieved a funding round of £24 million to develop its business. Investors included Amazon Alexa Fund, XTX Ventures, and the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund (NPIF) [34] here, that is itself funded by EU and UK governments. Logically states these investment funds will be used to develop its core businesses in USA, UK and India.
Infotagion.
Closely associated with the UK government is the fact check platform Infotagion, launched by Damien Collins, the former chair of the DCMS select committee, and four others. The timing of its first appearance raises the possibility that it replaced the discredited cabinet office fact check platform Rapid Response Unit when it was closed down. The exact launch date is not reported, and there is no funding information on the website. It was formed in order to provide an ‘independent’ fact checking service for Covid-19 information, using sources such as WHO and UK government.
Its supporters include peers including Lord Puttnam, four MPs including two members of the DCMS, a Canadian MP, a member of the Dall, Karen Kornblun of the German Marshall Fund, Sacha Havlicek of Institute of Strategic Dialogue, Prof. Philip Howard of the Oxford Internet Institute, and Imran Ahmed CEO of the Campaign to Combat Digital Hate (CCDH). It is noted that these people are either close to governments, or belong to organisations that are funded by the immensely wealthy, some of which are associated with intelligence services. Despite this being a platform dedicated to a health issue, no medically qualified persons are named as advisers.
Infotagion uses natural language processing algorithms to check social media. However, on examining claims that allege misinformation or disinformation that are published on its website, Infotagion does not use scientific evidence to back its position. Instead, its content moderation activities point to directives or advice from sources such as the WHO, Center for Disease Control (CDC) in USA, the British government, or mainstream media outlets such as Reuters.
On examining the Infotagion website in February 2025, the website does not appear to have recent activity, maybe because it was specific for Covid-19 information, and this disease is no longer a hot button issue [35] here.
Conclusion.
This report briefly considers the tech industry in the UK that supports censorship activities, British academia, and fact check platforms that operate in the UK. The UK is the only country where a trade organisation for tech platforms that support fact checking was located. However, this report did not look in detail at the operations of this trade organisation, and only noted its presence.
Many claim that academia has been captured by its funders. This preliminary study found a number of British universities that are paid to participate in the censorship industry, but it is likely that others are involved in this type of research. Universities that participate in such projects, funded by governments and corporates, have motivation to restrict debate, rather than encouraging those with opposing viewpoints to share their views. This may permeate other academic disciplines, not just to those involved in disinformation projects. Academic freedom is rarely a mainstream topic, though it deserves to be. This report only outlines very basic findings concerning the involvement of academia in the censorship industrial complex, but this is an important topic that needs more detailed and more extensive studies.
Despite the importance of UK in the global fact check industry, there are not many fact check platforms in the UK when compared to other countries of a similar size, such as France or Germany. This may be because of the hands-on role of the British government in censorship activities, plus the dominance of the BBC and the media regulator Ofcom in controlling information, as described in earlier The Control of Information reports. Another particular characteristic of the UK censorship industry is the number of very large NGOs, many with intelligence links, that operate outside and inside the UK, also described in an earlier report.
However, there are two very significant fact check platforms, including one that still operates in the UK but has moved its headquarters to Ireland recently. These both appear to have a worldwide influence although they are very different outfits, one a fast-growing AI company, and the other a charity that was exposed in the Twitter files as having a significant global role. There are a number of smaller fact check platforms, some associated with media outlets, and one shadowy platform with government links, which is currently inactive.
Looking at the past four reports on censorship activity in Britain, we see a very secretive state that is increasingly controlling information. Strangely, although many British people are aware of restrictions on their freedom of expression, they accept the government explanations of the potential dangers, and the need to protect the vulnerable. Yet free expression is the most important pillar of democracy, as this controls not only what individuals can say, but also controls and restricts discourse that informs the population so that they can make the best decisions for themselves.
One way that you can help British people understand how they are being controlled is to share this and the past four reports. My next reports will consider how information is controlled in Europe.