The Royal Commission into COVID19 lessons learned has called for submissions and they’re due March 24th. You can submit here, and we think you should: it’s really important for the commission to hear from you.
We’ve written a submission and you can read it below. Feel free to raid it for ideas, but don’t feel like you have to bash out thousands of words. Short and sweet works too.
Our tl;dr for question 1:
- the pandemic helped conspiracy and misinformation groups “get off the ground”
- conspiracy theory influencers have had serious effects on social cohesion
- even though most public health measures are behind us, conspiracy theory groups are still active and working hard to spread misinformation and gain influence
For question 2:
- public health comms need to take account of active, hostile, organised opponents
- we would like to see good moderated spaces where concerned people can find answers
- improving the public’s media literacy is important
- “pre-bunking” is a critical strategy to counter misinformation
- government must continually work to earn the trust of New Zealanders
For question 3:
- misinformation groups are seeking to expand the terms of reference so they can create a “circus” and use an expanded inquiry as a platform
- we want submissions to be private, and not televised
- if scope includes vaccine safety and efficacy we want genuine experts heard, not just the conspiracy theorist quacks
FACT Aotearoa’s submissions on the questions posed by the commission
What would you like the Inquiry to know about your experiences of the pandemic?
At the start of the pandemic, the World Health Organisation warned of a misinformation “infodemic” which would make it difficult for the public to access information they needed to protect themselves. In the following months we saw a rapid uptake of mis/disinformation and conspiracy theories within diverse communities in Aotearoa New Zealand, including religious and “new age” spiritual communities, festival goers, “alternative health” networks, Māori, small-business owners and farmers.
Influencers and Platforms
The spread of conspiracy theories and mis/disinformation did not happen by chance. A well-funded, coordinated network of ‘influencers’ (organisations and prominent individuals with large social media followings) emerged to promote it. New groups, established networks (historically focussed on vaccines, 1080, fluoridation and climate change denial), fringe political parties and religious groups combined resources and supporters. Influencers affiliated with international networks connected with high profile figures (such as the “Disinformation Dozen’s” Robert F Kennedy Jr).
Posing as credible information sources for those with a distrust in pandemic restrictions, mandates and vaccines, influencers collaborated to recruit, fundraise and disseminate mis/disinformation to large audiences through their online platforms, sophisticated marketing, in-person events, billboard campaigns and leaflet drops to over a million households.
Influencers claimed that COVID-19 wasn’t dangerous or didn’t even exist, so testing, lockdowns, masking etc were an unnecessary, authoritarian power grab. They also exploited debates about the costs and benefits of COVID-19 restrictions, drawing on the Great Barrington Declaration for legitimacy but introducing the idea that the pandemic was a crisis deliberately manufactured by a global, sinister elite to control the New Zealand people.
Anti-vaccine mis/disinformation was present early in the pandemic, but grew exponentially during the vaccine rollout. At best, influencers called it ineffective; at worst, according to them it caused disability and death. They also incorporated several conspiracy theory narratives:
- COVID-19 was created or released to necessitate a vaccine, possibly as part of a depopulation agenda
- Big Pharma had conspired with governments and the media to hide vaccine injuries and deaths
- Mandates would lead to a Chinese-style social credit surveillance state
“Sovereign citizen” and other pseudo-law ideas also became more popular at this time.
Influencers encouraged people to refuse vaccination and ignore public health advice. They demanded the abolition of all restrictions and a “let it rip” approach to COVID-19, implying that the burden of mitigating the virus should be borne solely by vulnerable groups, like the immunocompromised, the elderly, and Maori and Pacific communities (who experienced a higher morbidity rate from COVID-19). This was, and still is, cause for concern.
The internet, particularly social media, allows the public to share experiences with each other, but in doing so provides a viral platform for mis/disinformation. The failure of such platforms to effectively moderate COVID-19-related content exacerbated false narratives. Influencers were adept at gaming social media algorithms and staying just within moderation rules. Account bans and post removals were patchy, and often came after a post or Influencer had gained significant traction and a large following, which they would then invite to unmoderated platforms.
Algorithms designed to amplify information that sustained engagement favoured emotive or controversial mis/disinformation. By producing shareable memes and encouraging supporters to interact with specific content, Influencers utilised social media in a way public health communications did not.
The role of Influencers was crucial. The Centre for Countering Digital Hate found just 12 people were responsible for the bulk of misleading claims about COVID-19 vaccines that proliferated on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. In New Zealand, The Disinformation Project found that 12 groups or individuals were responsible for 73% of the misinformation narratives circulating during the 2020 protest in Wellington.
Divided communities and “splintered realities”
Influencers harmed Aotearoa’s social fabric by promoting distrust, fostering division and undermining the shared reality that is essential for social cohesion.
Many people targeted by mis/disinformation felt marginalised and had developed a distrust of “establishment” institutions such as state agencies, the media and the medical system long before the pandemic. As institutional distrust and conspiracy beliefs are substantially related, this provided fertile ground for Influencers to promote the idea that public health measures were an attempt to impose “tyranny”. The messaging also allowed them to reach people who believed the economic and social costs of COVID-19 restrictions were excessive or who opposed vaccine mandates.
Influencers targeted potential converts in what they called “the wobbly middle”, who had concerns or felt uncertain about the COVID-19 response or vaccines. They told their followers to ask leading questions to sow distrust, and encourage people to “do their own research”. Simultaneously, influencers rolled out emotive disinformation campaigns designed for a “wobbly middle” audience.
Recruits were offered a supportive community based on shared conspiracy beliefs and motivating cause. Influencers affirmed suspicions held by recruits about the “hidden reality” behind the pandemic, and reinforced them with disinformation and conspiracy theories. Opportunities for in-person interaction were often limited due to restrictions and concerns about the spread of COVID-19. However groups opposed to such restrictions organised in-person meetings and protests, offering recruits new social networks to replace those they had lost.
Drawing from conspiracy theories again, influencers crafted an “us and them” narrative which drew a line between the vaccinated, government advice following citizens, and themselves – the “truth seekers”. Supporters were encouraged to self-identify as persecuted individuals who knew “what was really going on”. Conversely, Kiwis who followed public health advice were dehumanised and portrayed as brainwashed “sheep”, blindly following the orders of a malevolent government. Those concerned about COVID-19 were mocked as “living in fear” and pathologised with the bogus notion of “mass formation psychosis” to explain away why they were unconvinced by mis/disinformation and conspiracy theory narratives.
Conspiracy theories are “stigmatised knowledge”. That is, knowledge claims that have not been accepted by institutions we rely upon for truth validation. So, influencers sought to promote distrust of these institutions and other credible sources of information during the pandemic. Experts such as scientists and medical professionals were denigrated as corrupt or complicit in favour of those who rejected the scientific consensus on COVID-19 and vaccines. This included a minority of NZ academics and medical professionals who ”legitimised” mis/disinformation about the virus, unproven treatments and vaccine risks, especially for pregnant people.
Influencers also encouraged supporters to abandon the mainstream media in favour of alternative media echo-chambers where their claims could go unchallenged. These strategies have created a “splintered reality” where many people are now firmly convinced that the vaccine is more dangerous than COVID-19, has caused significant excess deaths and blame the Government.
During the pandemic, we saw many anecdotal accounts of people who claimed to have “woken up to the truth”. Friends and family reported mutual frustration, difficulties with communication, strained relationships and a sense of isolation from their loved ones.
We also saw intense hostility directed towards people who Influencers claimed colluded to implement tyranny, or cause mass deaths and injuries. Nuremberg 2.0 is a rallying cry that spoke to the most violent impulses of those seeking “justice” and led to calls for public executions and the “swearing in of Sheriffs” willing to carry out arrests. Politicians, health officials, journalists and high profile science communicators bore the brunt of such abuse, but workers at all levels of the public health response were targeted.
Despite Aotearoa’s COVID-19 restrictions ending, Influencers have continued spreading misinformation about vaccines and increased their capacity to spread mis/disinformation by establishing new media outlets. They have also shifted focus to emphasise “culture war” issues such as transgender rights, co-governance and global warming. Here they continue to stoke division by running fear-based campaigns characterised by mis/disformation, “us and them” narratives, and emotive conspiracy theories which encourage their supporters to believe that they face existential threats. Additionally, they have begun to promote far-right activists. We remain concerned about their capacity to fuel distrust, division and radicalisation.
Question 2: what lessons should we learn from your experiences so we can be as prepared as possible for a future pandemic?
FACT recognises that the pandemic posed an unprecedented challenge for public health communications, with the need to act quickly to secure public support for our covid response in the context of emerging science about a new virus. We acknowledge the work that was done by the government and the media to ensure that people had the information they needed to keep themselves and others safe. However, we have some criticisms of the government’s approach to tackling mis/disinformation during the pandemic.
Simple phrasing and positive messaging helped secure public support and engagement with our successful elimination and vaccination strategies. However, the necessary simplification for a broad audience gave hostile and bad faith critics opportunities to exploit any lack of detail or perceived inconsistencies (eg on mask guidance) by claim information was being deliberately hidden from the public In addition the government sometimes appeared unaware of the potential to create opportunities for disinformation to spread. For example Jacinda Adern’s “Let’s talk about vaccine side effects” Facebook post was predictably flooded with comments containing antivaccine misinformation.
Going forward the government should approach public health communications with these risks in mind. Debunking misinformation after it has gained currency can strengthen the beliefs of people already persuaded and draw the attention of others who have not yet heard it. Since the start of the pandemic researchers have identified “pre-bunking” as a more successful approach. Pre-bunking is a technique of pre-emptively warning the public about potential conspiracies and why they fall short. “You’ll hear false information, like [falsehood] and this is incorrect, as [truth].”
During the COVID-19 vaccine rollout there was a lack of spaces for people to ask legitimate questions about the vaccine. There were good top-down mass communications, and the prompt to “talk to your GP” if you had questions. There is a large space in between the two. This gap allowed the rise of anti-vaccine influencers who seemed to be answering the public’s questions, but were feeding them with scaremongering content about both efficacy and safety.
Moderated spaces where people could access answers, and resources providing information dealing with common anti-vaccine tropes and emerging misinformation streams, could equip the public and medical professionals with the tools that needed to combat COVID-19 and vaccine falsities more effectively.
By teaching people to critically consume social media, and pointing out how conspiracy groups look, act and present themselves, we can foster a culture of awareness and vigilance within the NZ public of such mis and disinformation. For the future, this is especially important at a secondary school level.
This style of prebunking is best left to schools, science communicators and civil society organisations, as government interventions may be perceived as propaganda. But those 3rd parties will need support to play this role: access to experts, funding, and security as extremists target them.
In the future, organisations need to prepare for engagement with hostile, bad-faith actors which cynically use misinformation as a strategy to achieve and maintain influence. For example, Voices For Freedom, which has been a key recent driver of COVID-19, anti-vaccine and climate change misinformation and conspiracy theories in New Zealand, encourages its supporters to stand for local government (over 30 affiliated individuals have been elected) and apply for positions on appointed boards in order to implement its policy goals and promote misinformation.
Improving social cohesion benefits more than just those who fall down the conspiracy rabbit hole. Small local networks and clubs provide the sense of community we see being appreciated by conspiracy group converts. Preventing the radicalisation of such people is a national concern, and we recommend funded education as a future step forward.
Beyond this, for some, distrust of the NZ government is historically warranted. This is the case for Māori, as well as abuse victims and other demographics, as we saw recently in the abuse in state care inquiry. While conspiracy groups will try to rewrite history, even with this inquiry, we advise an honest and reflective approach to rebuilding trust with these demographics.
The belief in disinformation narratives is a symptom of larger organisational and societal distrust. Therefore, the time to restore trust in public institutions is not during a pandemic or emergency. It is now. The government and institutions must earn the trust of the public through transparency, public communication and consultation, and responding to those who have genuine reason to feel alienated. This is a much larger, all-of-society issue that needs attention to rebuild social cohesion.
Question 3: Terms of Reference: The coalition Government is committed to expanding the scope of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons based on public input, by adding additional topics to the terms of reference.
FACT Aotearoa (Fight Against Conspiracy Theories) is a grassroots group of activists fighting harmful conspiracy theories and disinformation in New Zealand. We carry out qualitative research, including monitoring conspiracy theorist forums to observe dialogue and trends, and publish analyses and resources on relevant topics.
Our current research encompasses the reactions of the COVID-19 conspiracist community and what they want in the expanded inquiry.
Groups like Voices for Freedom (VFF) are gearing up for large campaigns to sway public opinion on New Zealand’s COVID-19 response. This includes a push to throw out the current inquiry to start afresh, appointing a whole new team to staff and administer the commission, due to what they see as a non-transparent process and biased, conflicted commissioners. They have called the current form of the inquiry a farce.
In saying that, they are still encouraging people to submit on all aspects. VFF have written terms of reference they would like the inquiry to include. Many of the points are relevant. But they are written purposefully to lead the enquiry to their desired conclusion. Their goal is “strategically taking advantage of a public inquiry to supercharge the populace’s education”. (VFF email to members 17/3/24).
Some of their beliefs that they want to see become truths are: influence from global bodies and government not related to COVID-19, such as the World Health Organisation, government collusion and coercion with media outlets, high death rates and injuries from the vaccine, that lockdowns did more damage than saved lives.
They would like the inquiry to be televised, which we strongly advise against. The enquiry should not be hijacked to be a public platform for conspiracies. This would provide “reactable” content for podcasts, articles, and memes aligned with conspiracy groups to use to evangelise their misinformation-filled epistemology, and create doubt in the COVID-19 response and the safety of all vaccines. It would also give false legitimacy to the content, as it was delivered under the authority of an independent government commission.
We’re not against the inclusion of broader terms of reference. Balance can be struck by not allowing open-to-public hearings, making sure the voices of those who have worked tirelessly to keep New Zealand safe are included, and also accounts of vulnerable communities’ experiences over the last four years. A focus on vaccine safety and efficacy, its minimisation of hospitalisation which protected our health system from collapse, and lives saved can help prevent pouring people into the anti-vaccine radicalisation pipeline.
