This reads as unless the left renders itself in a form that is acceptable, through 'self imposed due diligence' (of course) , to the British state it will always be treated as assets of foreign intelligence. Paul is acknowledging that and left wing groups and NGOs need to respond. I am aware you don't have time to contribute to Paul's project but you are on board , right?
Not to be acceptable to the British state, but to the general population. If you are taking money to help cover up a genocide and parrot the propaganda of a dictatorship then you will be seen by most people, rightly, as a piece of shit. That there is passive acceptance or even complicity in this kind of behaviour on the left will be weaponised against it when the establishment feels threatened - but even so we shouldn't accept it anyway. It is less like becoming palatable by the establishment by refusing to challenge their interests, and more like not accepting sexism within your organisation because not only does it bring you into disrepute, but also because you shouldn't accept it anyway.
It is hard to see what the Vanessa Beesleys or Max Blumenthals of the world running around on the outskirts of the left actually add of any value or relevance to socialist politics. Calling them out earlier, rather than echoing and amplifying their crap, might have even got Corbyn elected - but getting rid of toxic alt-right adjacent anti-semitic conspiracy theories and atrocity denial would hardly have entailed watering down Corbyn's social and economic platform.
Also Paul Mason doesn't seem to be launching a particular programme or project in that article so I'm not sure what it would mean for me to be on board. He is merely saying his opinion. Which is summarised as follows:
1) State actors have learned to manipulate social media to spread disinformation more successfully through algorithmic manipulation
2) National governments are slow to respond to and to understand these disinformation campaigns
3) It is dangerous for national governments to lead the campaign against disinformation as it has the potential to threaten free speech and civil rights more broadly
4) Therefore civil society institutions (trade unions, NGOs, political parties etc) should manage their own counter-disinformation strategies, and the left should champion counter-disinformation as a cause, advocating state support to enable and assist counter-disinformation efforts
What exactly do you think is so ludicrous about this? Or do you merely object to countering disinformation on principle?
I think you may simply not be appreciating the significance of the question. Authoritarian states have already given their answer to disinformation - for example China's firewall, which does not prevent disinformation exactly but does block disinformation (as well as accurate information) which doesn't agree with the central government narrative. Authoritarian states are proactive in trying to establish international norms in counter-disinformation at the UN by promoting methodologies such as that are used in China.
We are now in a situation where such states can filter out and block any news they don't like, but actively pump disinformation and misinformation into countries that do not censor their Internet. Such disinformation almost overturned US democracy on January 6th, and has also caused problems with Covid denial and anti-vaxxers.
Mason is recognising that this is an important issue, and tentatively suggesting that the answer may lie in creating a population who are savvier at recognising disinformation and suggests a decentralised campaign led by civil society institutions with some assistance from the state (whether that is funding, advice or whatever isn't specified) would be a preferable alternative to a centralised state-led strategy which could produce outcomes similar to China and Russia. I'm not sure what you think he was trying to say, but it is actually a pretty good article imo.
