Web of Chaos revisited

In November 2022 I published on my blog an article entitled ‘There’s Something Happening Here’.

Among the matters discussed were two documentaries that screen on television. One was the agitprop piece ‘Fire and Fury’. The other was a similar piece of agitprop entitled ‘Web of Chaos’.

Although it is nearly two years old — an aeon in internet time — TVNZ screened this programme of doubtful accuracy on Sunday 19 May in the time slot replacing ‘Sunday’. This is not the first time it has been screened.

The question that occupied my mind was “why would they rescreen this show”. I have no evidence-based answer although I have a suspicion.

On 30 April 2024, just under two weeks ago, the Department of Internal Affairs announced, confirmed by the Minister of Internal Affairs, Ms Brooke van Velden that it was no longer continuing with the Safer Online Services and Media Platforms project. Is it possible that the screening of this documentary is an answer to the Government’s abandonment of the censorship regime that was proposed by the DIA?

Another issue flows from the screening of this programme. There is no right of reply, no critique of the information or misinformation that is propagated in this documentary. It presents one side of the story — a very unbalanced side at that.

At the moment I am analysing a paper written by Dr Gavin Ellis about the future of Mainstream Media in New Zealand. The paper is entitled ‘If Not Journalists Then Who?’ Certainly not David Farrier, Sanjana Hattotuwa, Kate Hannah and the other denizens of ‘Web of Chaos’.

Of course TVNZ should screen the documentary. It is part of its journalistic freedom and an element of freedom of expression, in the same way that those who voice their views on the show are entitled to do so. This article challenges some of the commentary that appears on ‘Web of Chaos’. And of course by seeing some of the commentators put their position across we the viewers are able to make our own judgements about their reliability.

A section of ‘There’s Something Happening Here’ dealing with the ‘Web of Chaos’ documentary follows. I hope it brings some balance and proportion to the debate.

On 1 November 2022, TV1 screened the documentary ‘Web of Chaos’. The following day, Prime screened the fourth instalment of the series ‘A Question of Justice’ which addressed hate crimes.

I shall start my consideration of the documentaries by explaining why I conflate disinformation and hate speech.

The predominant theme of ‘Web of Chaos’ is that of disinformation and the way that online networks have enabled its spread. Sadly, at no time is disinformation defined. This is curious because much of the documentary contains interviews or commentary from two academics involved in The Disinformation Project. One of these academics is Ms Kate Hannah.

Ms Hannah describes how people are drawn into mis/disinformation networks in different ways. She refers to the “trad wife” viewpoint. She claims that white Christian pseudo-Celtic pseudo-Nordic ideology lies behind this viewpoint. They (presumably the “white Christian pseudo-Celtic pseudo-Nordic”) use Pinterest and Instagram to draw in other women who are interested in interior design, children’s clothing, knitting, and healthy food for children.

From this innocent start people are drawn in towards a set of white nationalist ideas. Fair skinned children with braids is a danger signal according to Ms Hannah. She did not explain why this was the case.

She then referred to the association of these ideas with a toxic masculinity which had:

 ”…very fixed ideas about gender roles, race, ethnic identity, national identity, nationalism and rights to things like free speech — very influenced by a totally US centric model.” (‘Web of Chaos’ at 21.5) 

In essence these characteristics, according to Hannah, derive from US-based alt-right perspectives.

If I understand Ms Hannah’s position disinformation is associated with extremist ideologies. These ideologies are nationalistic, white supremacist and far-right.

This may be viewed alongside the material presented in the documentary by Professor Lisa Ellis, political philosopher, Otago University. She commented on some aspects leading to the rise of the Nazis in 1930s Germany. The racist hatred of Nazis is reflected in some modern extremist organisations. Ms Hannah and Professor Ellis focus on the far-right but similar racist hatred is expressed in other ideologies represented by Al Qaeda or ISIS.

The Stuff documentary ‘Fire and Fury’ dealt with the rise of disinformation and the way in which that led to radical and violent action and extreme expressions of hatred especially towards politicians.

The very clear message from these sources is that disinformation and racial hatred or hate speech are two sides of the same coin. According to Ms Hannah they are inextricably intertwined. One inevitably leads to another. It seems that any discussion of disinformation ultimately ends up in a consideration of hate speech or extremist speech.

In her address to the opening of New Zealand’s Hui on Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism — He Whenua Taurikura — Ms Ardern made a similar association between disinformation and violent extremism. I discuss this in detail below. 

It is for those reasons that I conflate disinformation and hate speech as both worthy of consideration in a discussion about freedom of expression.

1 November 2022 — Web of Chaos — TV1

This TV programme was described as “a deep dive into the world of disinformation, exploring why it's spreading at pace throughout Aotearoa and the world, with specialists warning of striking consequences for social cohesion and democracy.”

In many respects, both in the manner of presentation and the content presented it bore a close relationship to the ‘Fire and Fury’ documentary put out by Stuff. It starts with a recognition of the way in which online platforms can enable communities but then rapidly descends into a critique of what is described as cultish behaviour.

Kate Hannah was joined by Dr. Sanjana Hattotuwa, also of the Disinformation Project and assisted by David Farrier, described as a journalist and podcaster. Farrier tracks the development of Internet communication from the early days of discussion groups to the current world of social media platforms and algorithm-driven content.

A fair section of the programme focuses upon the Wellington Protests of February–March 2022, covering the same material as ‘Fire and Fury’ and expressing similar concerns about perceptions of violent radicalism or extremism. A concern by Dr. Hattotuwa is that the Internet provides a means of communication and connection between previously isolated radicals. He describes it as the algorithmic amplification of psychosis.

Although it is not clearly explained there is ample evidence to establish that social media platforms use algorithms in the background. These algorithms are designed to track the search or interest patterns of a user and then provide more information of a similar type. The problem is that as the user follows a particular interest, more and more information associated with that interest will be provided. This can be troublesome if the users’ interests are oriented towards violence or extremism. More problematic is the situation where a user may hover around the edges of extremist content but be served up more and more content of that nature.

Both Dr Hattotuwa and Ms Hannah immerse themselves in the vast amount of what comprises misinformation, disinformation and radical extremism online.

Dr Hattotuwa subscribes to 130 Telegram channels and groups. He concedes he does not read everything that comes across his screen. Because of the way he organises the information, he claims that he gets an insight into the mindset of the people who frequent the channels.

Dr Hattotuwa discussed what he calls toxic information and commentary including material directed at the Prime Minister. What was extraordinary was the suggestion that this toxic informational landscape was being used by 350,000 New Zealanders — all grooming and harvesting. Dr Hattotuwa emphasises in a spooky tone of voice:

“It is here. It is amongst you” (‘Web of Chaos’ at 29.30).

No evidence is offered to support either the numbers or the assertion.

Ms Hannah expressed concerns about death threats that she received and records the ritualistic washing of hands she undertakes before she examines archival material — a form of symbolic disengagement from reading unpleasant material.  She does the same investigating information on the computer. Dr Hattotuwa describes how he has two showers a day to symbolically wash away the detritus of the online material he has been viewing. These actions on the part of two individuals who are meant to be carrying out dispassionate and objective research is interesting if only for the level of subjectivity it introduces.

Marc Daalder — reporter on ‘Technology and the Far Right’ which must be a clear indicator of other than an objective perspective — suggests that although there may not be funding of extreme groups in New Zealand the Internet allows the importation and availability of this material.

Ms Hannah suggests that groups are using New Zealand as a laboratory for disinformation strategies to see if they work.

The documentary offers no solutions other than to have Professor Ellis observe that today’s Digital Natives are less likely to be taken in by mis/disinformation and conspiracy theories. She holds out some hope for the future.

What the documentary does do is to further enhance the aura of fear that was generated by the ‘Fire and Fury’ piece, identifying what is perceived as a problem but leaving the door open as to solutions.

The conflation of disinformation with hate speech suggests that whatever proposals there may be for restricting or limiting hate speech should be applied equally to disinformation and possibly even misinformation. This would result in a significant limitation upon the freedom of expression.

Ms Hannah and Dr Hattotuwa expressed their views in the ‘Fire and Fury’ documentary as well as the ‘Web of Chaos’ documentary. They are entitled to express their views. My suggestion is that those views should be approached with caution. Although they may be able to point to evidence of what they describe as mis/disinformation, the way in which they interpret that evidence gives me some cause for concern.

Certainly they are neither dispassionate nor objective about their topic. This is evidenced by the reactions that they have to the content of the material that they view. They clearly are responding subjectively to it. They make value judgments rather than empirical or descriptive ones.

One astonishing connection was made by Ms Hannah to which I have referred above. In her discussion about connection between white nationalism and the slide towards extremism she said that an identifier of the groups of which she was critical involved the “advocacy of rights to things like free speech.” (My emphasis)

I trust Ms Hannah does not stand by that generalisation. The implication is clear. If one is an advocate of rights such as free speech, one is a right-wing extremist, supporting white nationalism or white supremacy.

That conclusion cannot be supported by the facts. Those who advocate liberty are not extremists. Those who advocate freedom of expression are not far-right-wing. For example, an examination of the Council of the Free Speech Union reveals some commentators who occupy a position on the Left of the political spectrum.

Ms Hannah’s sweeping generalisation does neither her argument nor her credibility any good. Dr Hattotuwa’s unsupported assertion that 350,000 subscribe to the toxic informational network does little for dispassionate analysis or objectivity.

Indeed, examples such as this cause one to examine with a greater critical lens the assertions and validity of material that emanates from the Disinformation Project.

Indeed the whole tone of the ‘Web of Chaos’ documentary had a whiff of hysteria to it. Suggestions of a far-right conspiracy peddling disinformation with the objective of destroying democracy echo the themes underlying ‘Fire and Fury’.

This article was originally published on David’s Substack, A Halfling's View on 19 May 2024. Subscribe to David’s Substack to read more.