Read the original article here.

---

Understanding Disinformation in the Digital Age: A Tool for Manipulation and Control

In today's interconnected world, information flows faster and wider than ever before. While this offers unprecedented opportunities for learning and connection, it also creates fertile ground for manipulation. This resource delves into the concept of disinformation, exploring its origins, mechanisms, and profound impact, particularly in the digital realm where data and platforms are increasingly weaponized to influence thought and behavior.

What is Disinformation? Defining the Core Concept

Disinformation is more than just a mistake or a false statement. It is a calculated and deliberate act designed to deceive.

Disinformation: Misleading content deliberately spread to deceive people, or to secure economic or political gain and which may cause public harm. It is an orchestrated adversarial activity in which actors employ strategic deceptions and media manipulation tactics to advance political, military, or commercial goals.

This definition highlights several key aspects:

• Intent: Disinformation is purposeful. It's not an accidental error.
• Goal-Oriented: It is spread to achieve specific outcomes, such as political influence, economic advantage, or military objectives.
• Potential Harm: It can lead to tangible negative consequences for individuals and society.
• Orchestrated Activity: It often involves coordinated campaigns using various deceptive strategies and media channels.

It's crucial to distinguish disinformation from related terms:

Misinformation: Inaccuracies that stem from inadvertent error.

Misinformation is simply false information spread without the intent to deceive. While less malicious in origin, it can still cause harm. Notably, known misinformation can be used to create disinformation if someone deliberately amplifies it knowing it's false.

The term "fake news" has often been used informally to describe disinformation, particularly fabricated news articles. However, scholars advise caution in using this term, especially in academic contexts, as it has been politically weaponized to dismiss any unfavorable information, regardless of its veracity.

The Origins of the Term

The English word "disinformation" has roots both in Latin and, more significantly in its modern usage, in the Russian language. While the Latin prefix dis- added to information implies a "reversal or removal of information," the term gained prominence as a loan translation of the Russian дезинформация (transliterated as dezinformatsiya).

This Russian term was apparently derived from the name of a KGB black propaganda department during the Soviet era. Soviet planners defined it as "dissemination (in the press, on the radio, etc.) of false reports intended to mislead public opinion."

The term became more widely known in the West during the Cold War and entered English dictionaries in the mid-1980s. Its meaning broadened beyond just Soviet state activity to encompass any government communication (overt or covert) containing intentionally false and misleading material, often mixed with truth, to manipulate elites or mass audiences. By the 1990s, "disinformation" was fully integrated into the political lexicon, and by the early 2000s, it was sometimes colloquially used simply as a more civil synonym for lying or equated with propaganda.

Operationalizing Disinformation: How it Works

Disinformation research is an academic field dedicated to studying how misleading and false information, as well as media manipulation, spreads and impacts people online and offline. It examines the mechanisms of spread, susceptibility, and mitigation strategies.

Disinformation circulates digitally through deception campaigns employing various tactics:

• Astroturfing: Creating fake grassroots movements to give the impression of widespread support for a particular viewpoint.
• Conspiracy Theories: Spreading unsubstantiated explanations for events, often involving secret plots by powerful groups.
• Clickbait: Sensationalized headlines or content designed purely to attract clicks, regardless of accuracy.
• Culture Wars: Exploiting and amplifying existing societal divisions and identity-driven controversies.
• Echo Chambers: Online spaces where individuals are primarily exposed to information and opinions that confirm their existing beliefs.
• Hoaxes: Deceptive stories or actions intended to fool people.
• Fake News: Fabricated articles presented as legitimate news.
• Propaganda: Information, often biased or misleading, used to promote a particular political cause or point of view.
• Pseudoscience: Claims, beliefs, or practices presented as scientific but lacking evidence or plausibility.
• Rumors: Unverified information spread through word of mouth or online channels.

To provide a clearer framework, scholars often use the DMMI model to distinguish types of harmful information:

DMMI Framework:

• Disinformation: Strategic dissemination of false information with the intention to cause public harm.
• Misinformation: The unintentional spread of false information.
• Malinformation: Factual information disseminated with the intention to cause harm (e.g., doxxing).

Another widely used model for understanding online disinformation campaigns is the ABC framework, with later additions:

ABC+D+E Framework for Online Disinformation:

• Actors: Individuals or groups knowingly engaged in covert deception campaigns (e.g., state media, intelligence operatives, troll farms, anonymous personas like "Guccifer 2.0"). Their identity and intent are deliberately hidden.
• Behavior: The techniques used to amplify and exaggerate the reach and impact of campaigns (e.g., using bots, troll farms, paid engagement, astroturfing).
• Content: The harmful material being spread (e.g., health misinformation, deepfakes, hate speech, violent extremism promotion).
• Distribution: The technical mechanisms of platforms that enable or constrain user behavior and shape the spread (e.g., algorithms, network structures).
• Degree: The extent of the spread and the size/nature of the audience reached.
• Effect: The actual impact or threat posed by a campaign.

This layered approach helps analyze disinformation campaigns by breaking down the who, how they act, what they spread, where/how it spreads, how far it goes, and what happens because of it.

Disinformation vs. Propaganda

The relationship between disinformation and propaganda is complex and debated. Some view disinformation as a type of propaganda, specifically the kind intended to undermine a political ideal using false information. Others see them as distinct.

A key distinction often made is that while propaganda generally aims to persuade or promote a viewpoint (even using biased information), disinformation specifically aims to deceive using deliberate falsehoods. Furthermore, disinformation can have a broader goal than just promoting a cause; it can be designed to create widespread public cynicism, uncertainty, apathy, distrust, and paranoia. This outcome is a form of control, as it discourages citizen engagement and mobilization for social or political change, benefiting those who wish to maintain the status quo or sow chaos.

The Practice of Disinformation: Who, How, and Where

Disinformation is frequently associated with Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI). While disinformation research focuses on the content of deceptive activity, FIMI is a broader term concerned with the behavior of state or state-backed actors using tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) borrowed from military doctrine to influence another nation's affairs.

Historically and presently, disinformation is primarily carried out by government intelligence agencies. However, it is also employed by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), businesses, and political groups.

Methods and Use Cases:

• Front Groups: Organizations that conceal their true objectives and controllers to mislead the public.
  • Use Case: A company funding a seemingly independent "consumer advocacy group" to spread false information about a competitor's product or lobby against regulations harmful to the company.
• Fabricated Content: Creating and distributing forged documents, manuscripts, photographs, or videos.
  • Use Case: Forging official government documents to "reveal" a scandal that never happened, or creating manipulated photos/videos (like deepfakes) to discredit public figures.
• Spreading Dangerous Rumors and Fabricated Intelligence: Circulating false narratives through various channels.
  • Use Case: Starting rumors about a public health crisis to cause panic, or fabricating intelligence reports to justify political actions.
• "Fake News" Articles: Disinformation masked as legitimate news, designed to look like reporting from credible sources.
  • Use Case: Creating websites designed to mimic real news outlets and publishing completely fabricated stories about political candidates or events.

Using these tactics carries risks, known as blowback, including defamation lawsuits or damage to the credibility of the dis-informer if exposed.

Disinformation in the Digital Age: Exploiting Platforms and Data

The digital environment, particularly social media and online advertising, provides new and powerful vectors for spreading disinformation.

Studies categorize the spread of disinformation online into two main stages:

1. Seeding: Malicious actors strategically introduce deceptive content (like fake news) into a social media ecosystem. This is the initial injection.
2. Echoing: The audience then disseminates this disinformation, often adopting it as their own opinion and using it as "rhetorical ammunition" in arguments, especially within "culture wars" and identity-driven controversies. Disinformation thrives in environments of perpetual debate and conflict because these controversies create fertile ground for circulating and solidifying opposing viewpoints.

Four main methods of online seeding identified by research include:

1. Selective Censorship: While seeming counter-intuitive, this refers to controlling the flow of information, perhaps by blocking access to credible sources while promoting deceptive ones in certain regions or online spaces.
2. Manipulation of Search Rankings: Rigging search engine results so that deceptive websites or articles appear higher than credible ones for specific search terms. This directly influences what information users encounter first.
3. Hacking and Releasing: Gaining unauthorized access to private communications or documents and selectively releasing manipulated or decontextualized versions to create a false narrative or damage reputations.
4. Directly Sharing Disinformation: The most straightforward method, involving posting fake news articles, manipulated images, false claims, or propaganda directly onto social media, forums, or websites.

Exploiting Online Advertising Technologies: A critical element linking disinformation to digital manipulation is the misuse of online advertising systems.

• Real-Time Bidding (RTB): The automated, instantaneous auction for ad space online can be exploited. Ads placed alongside or promoting disinformation content can financially incentivize its creation and spread.
• Financial Incentives: Platforms and content creators can monetize user engagement, even if that engagement is with sensational or false content. This creates a perverse incentive to prioritize virality over truth.
• Lax Oversight & Dark Money: The online advertising market can be opaque. "Dark money" (political funding where the source is not disclosed) can be used to purchase political ads promoting disinformation without accountability, directly targeting users based on their online data profiles.

This exploitation shows how the very design and business models of digital platforms, reliant on data collection, targeted advertising, and engagement metrics, can be leveraged to amplify deliberate deception for financial or political gain.

Global Examples of Disinformation Campaigns

Disinformation has been a tool of statecraft for decades.

• Soviet Disinformation: The concept of dezinformatsiya was a formal component of Soviet strategy, used extensively during the Cold War to undermine Western governments and influence global opinion. Operation INFEKTION, for example, was a notorious campaign to spread the false claim that the U.S. government created AIDS.
• American Disinformation: The US Intelligence Community also adopted disinformation tactics.
  • Example 1 (Iran, 1953): The CIA placed fictitious stories in local Iranian newspapers to destabilize the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh during efforts to reinstate the Shah.
  • Example 2 (Afghanistan, 1979): Following the Soviet invasion, the CIA reportedly placed false articles in newspapers in Islamic countries claiming Soviet embassies celebrated the invasion, aimed at stirring anti-Soviet sentiment among Muslim populations.
  • Example 3 (Libya, 1986): The Reagan administration engaged in a campaign to make Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi believe the US was planning an imminent attack, reportedly to deter him from further terrorism. This involved leaking false information to US media.
  • Example 4 (China COVID-19 Vaccine, 2020-2021): Reuters reported that the US military ran a propaganda campaign using fake social media accounts to spread disinformation against the Chinese Sinovac vaccine in the Philippines, falsely claiming it contained pork ingredients (thus haram under Islamic law). This campaign aimed to counter China's influence and was described as "payback" for China blaming the US for the pandemic.

These examples demonstrate how states use disinformation to achieve strategic objectives, often targeting specific populations or governments through media manipulation, now including digital platforms. The politicization of disinformation research itself in the US, with some politicians labeling it as censorship, further complicates the issue, potentially hindering efforts to understand and counter the problem.

Consequences and the Debate Over Impact

There is broad agreement that significant amounts of disinformation circulate online. However, the precise extent to which this exposure changes political attitudes or influences political outcomes is a subject of ongoing debate among scholars.

Early concerns, particularly after the 2016 US election, suggested a significant impact, with some researchers and journalists pointing to high rates of sharing of false stories and the potential for echo chambers to reinforce partisan beliefs.

However, subsequent research has yielded more nuanced findings:

• While fake news stories were shared millions of times in 2016, they constituted only a small fraction of the news consumed by most Americans.
• Exposure to Russian disinformation on Twitter in 2016 was concentrated among a small group of users, primarily Republicans, and was dwarfed by exposure to legitimate news sources and politicians.
• Some studies, including randomized-control experiments, have found no significant effect of exposure to specific online fake news stories on voting intentions.
• Overall research on misinformation's impact on political knowledge remains inconclusive.
• Some evidence suggests users on platforms like Facebook and Twitter may be exposed to a more diverse range of news sources than commonly assumed.
• Historically, disinformation campaigns aiming to alter the foreign policies of targeted states have rarely succeeded.

Despite these findings suggesting a potentially limited direct impact on voting behavior for the population as a whole, the concern remains high. Disinformation can still:

• Polarize society by fueling culture wars.
• Erode trust in institutions (media, government, science).
• Discourage political participation by fostering cynicism and apathy.
• Cause direct harm (e.g., health misinformation leading to dangerous practices).
• Solidify partisan identities by providing "rhetorical ammunition" for online conflict.

Research on the consequences is challenging because disinformation is designed to be difficult to detect, and some social media companies have historically been criticized for not fully cooperating with outside researchers or providing necessary data, making comprehensive studies difficult.

Challenges and Alternative Perspectives in Disinformation Research

Current research on disinformation, while growing, faces critiques for being potentially too narrow in scope.

Critiques often highlight:

• Over-reliance on technology platforms: Focusing too much on platforms in isolation, neglecting the broader political, social, and economic contexts.
• Under-emphasis on politics: Not adequately analyzing how disinformation is intertwined with political power dynamics, historical grievances, and systemic issues.
• Americentrism: Research often focuses heavily on the US context, failing to capture the global nuances and impacts, particularly in the Global South, where information ecosystems, power structures, and historical dependencies differ.
• Shallow understanding of culture: Not deeply analyzing how disinformation exploits cultural identities, values, and existing divisions.
• Lack of intersectional analysis: Insufficiently considering how factors like race, class, gender, and sexuality intersect with vulnerability to or spread of disinformation.
• Thin understanding of journalism: Not fully appreciating the complexities and challenges faced by legitimate news media.
• Funding-driven focus: Research priorities potentially being shaped more by grant opportunities than by fundamental theoretical development or empirical needs.

These critiques propose alternative directions for future research to provide a more holistic understanding:

• Moving Beyond Fact-Checking and Media Literacy: While important, countering disinformation requires more than just correcting false claims or teaching individuals to spot fakes. It necessitates understanding the systemic drivers and broader phenomena.
• Beyond Technical Solutions: Artificial intelligence and other technical tools for detection are helpful but insufficient. Addressing the systemic basis of disinformation, including platform design and business models, is crucial.
• Developing a Global Perspective: Research needs to expand beyond the US and Western focus to understand disinformation campaigns, their targets, and impacts worldwide, considering cultural imperialism and varied media landscapes.
• Market-Oriented Research: Examining the financial incentives, advertising models, and business structures that encourage platforms and content creators to prioritize engagement and virality, even at the cost of spreading disinformation.
• Multidisciplinary Approach: Integrating insights from fields like history, political economy, ethnic studies, feminist studies, and science and technology studies to provide a richer, more contextualized understanding.
• Understanding Gendered-Based Disinformation (GBD): Recognizing and studying specific forms of disinformation that target individuals based on their gender, particularly women in public life (politics, journalism), often using false or misleading attacks rooted in misogyny or gender stereotypes.

Gendered-Based Disinformation (GBD): The dissemination of false or misleading information attacking women (especially political leaders, journalists, and public figures), basing the attack on their identity as women.

Addressing these critiques and expanding research directions are vital steps in building a more robust understanding of how disinformation operates and how it is used as a tool for digital manipulation and control across diverse contexts.

Conclusion: Navigating the Manipulated Information Landscape

Disinformation, a tactic with historical roots in statecraft and psychological warfare, has found fertile ground and unprecedented reach in the digital age. Fueled by platform algorithms that prioritize engagement, exploitable advertising models, and the dynamics of online social interaction, it serves as a powerful tool for manipulation. Actors, ranging from state intelligence agencies to political opportunists and businesses, deliberately spread false content to achieve political, economic, or social objectives, often by eroding trust, creating apathy, and exploiting societal divisions.

While the precise, quantifiable impact of online disinformation on major political outcomes remains a subject of debate and ongoing research, its potential for harm – distorting public perception, inciting conflict, and undermining democratic processes – is undeniable. Understanding disinformation requires moving beyond simply labeling false content. It demands examining the actors, their behaviors, the technical systems they exploit, the financial incentives at play, and the cultural and political contexts that make populations susceptible. As digital systems become increasingly central to how we receive information and interact with the world, recognizing the sophisticated ways data and platforms are used to spread deliberate falsehoods is essential for navigating the manipulated information landscape and protecting ourselves from its controlling influence.

---