The Wider Ecosystem
This site is one node in a broader effort. Here are the organisations doing the most important work — what they do, how they differ from each other, and how they connect.
How to read this page. Tap any underlined word to see the precise term and a short definition. Expand the "Deeper" box for the evidence behind the choices in this list. The directory works on its own.
Center for Humane Technology
humanetech.com — Founded by Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin, former tech industry insiders. Focus: policy advocacy, public awareness, industry reform. The Your Undivided Attention podcast is their most accessible public output. If this site is for general readers wanting to understand the mechanism, CHT is the organisation translating that understanding into policy change at the platform and regulatory level.
DROG / Bad News game
getbadnews.com — Dutch organisation that developed the Bad News game in collaboration with Cambridge University researchers. The game teaches six documented manipulation techniques from the inside — playing the role of a fake news creator. The inoculation effect is documented in peer-reviewed research. Start here. Recommended throughout this site.
Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab (SDML)
sdmlab.psychol.cam.ac.uk — The academic home of prebunking research. Sander van der Linden's lab produced the foundational inoculation theory research that underpins both the Bad News game and Google/Jigsaw's prebunking campaigns. If you want the primary research, this is the source.
EUvsDisinfo
euvsdisinfo.eu — The EU East StratCom Task Force's live database of documented disinformation cases, primarily but not exclusively Russian-origin. Searchable, sourced, and updated continuously. Essential reference for anyone working on election integrity or foreign influence operations.
Commissariaat voor de Media (CvdM)
cvdm.nl — The Dutch independent media regulator. In May 2026, it concluded that algorithmic feeds are "demonstrably risky for democracy" and published a roadmap for making recommendation algorithms serve democratic opinion formation. Relevant primarily for the Dutch regulatory and policy context, but significant as institutional corroboration of this site's central argument.
Netwerk Mediawijsheid
mediawijsheid.nl — The Dutch national media literacy network. Coordinates media literacy education across the Netherlands. The primary Dutch institutional partner for the work this site does for a general audience. Essential reference for the Dutch-language version of this site and for Dutch educators and parents.
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
eff.org — Digital rights organisation. The definitive source on Section 230 history, surveillance law, and the technical specifics of tracking and privacy. Their Cover Your Tracks tool is recommended on the Tools page.
What is not in this list
Fact-checkers: debunking — correcting false claims after they circulate — is valuable but less effective than prebunking (building resistance to manipulation techniques before exposure). This site's approach is prebunking; fact-checkers do different work. Bias-rating services: the "brand approach" to media evaluation (rating outlets by perceived political leaning) contradicts the process argument this site makes — the question is never which outlet, but what process produced the content.
Prebunking vs debunking
Debunking corrects a false claim after it has spread; prebunking builds resistance to the manipulation technique before you meet it, so you recognise the move when it arrives. Prebunking is the inoculation idea applied at scale — and the reason this site teaches techniques rather than maintaining a running list of false claims to correct.
Sources
- Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab — inoculation/prebunking research.
Deeper — why this list favours prebunking, and why no bias-ratings
Two editorial choices on this page follow directly from the site's argument. First, prebunking over debunking: the inoculation research (van der Linden's lab, the Bad News evaluations) finds that teaching people to spot manipulation tactics produces resistance that transfers across topics and lasts, where correcting individual false claims is slower, arrives after the falsehood has travelled, and sometimes entrenches it. Debunking and fact-checking still do necessary work — this is a question of emphasis and leverage, not of one being worthless.
Second, no media bias-rating services. Rating outlets by perceived political leaning treats trustworthiness as a property of the brand. The site's whole case is that reliability is a property of the process — verification, transparency, correction — not the masthead. A bias chart answers "which side is this outlet on?"; the more useful question is "what process produced this specific claim, and can it be checked?"