Read the original article here.

---

Digital Manipulation: How They Use Data to Control You

Understanding Disinformation Attacks

Disinformation attacks are sophisticated, strategic campaigns designed to deceive and manipulate populations through the intentional spreading of false or misleading information. Unlike simple misinformation (which might be unintentional), disinformation is deliberate and often coordinated. In the digital age, these attacks leverage advanced media manipulation and internet manipulation tactics, weaponizing data and digital tools to achieve their goals.

These attacks aim to confuse, paralyze, and polarize their target audience. They aren't just about spreading falsehoods; they strategically combine truths, half-truths, and emotionally charged judgments to exploit existing societal divisions and amplify controversies, particularly those tied to identity.

Disinformation: False information that is deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.

Misinformation: Incorrect or misleading information. Misinformation can be unintentional.

Initially targeting traditional broadcast media, disinformation attacks have become increasingly prevalent and potent through internet manipulation on social media platforms. They are now considered a significant cyber threat.

Cyber Threat: Any potential malicious act that seeks to gain unauthorized access to computer data or a computer system; disrupt or damage computer data, systems or processes; or compromise data confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Disinformation attacks are considered a cyber threat because they manipulate online systems and information to achieve harmful outcomes.

The power of digital disinformation lies in its ability to scale rapidly and target specific groups. Tools like bots, algorithms, and AI technology work alongside human agents, such as paid influencers, to disseminate and amplify narratives. These campaigns are micro-targeted to reach specific populations on platforms like Instagram, Twitter, Google, Facebook, and YouTube, often using personal data to tailor messages for maximum impact.

According to a 2018 report by the European Commission, disinformation attacks pose serious threats to democratic governance, primarily by undermining the legitimacy and integrity of electoral processes. These attacks are employed by and against a wide range of actors, including governments, corporations, scientists, journalists, activists, and private individuals.

The primary objectives are to reshape attitudes and beliefs, drive specific agendas, elicit desired actions from a target audience, create uncertainty, and undermine the credibility of official information sources.

Goals of Disinformation Attacks

Disinformation attacks are not random acts; they are strategic and intentional. The ultimate goals are varied and can overlap, often serving political, economic, or individual interests. They seek to manipulate perceptions and behaviors on a mass scale.

Convincing People to Believe Incorrect Information

A core goal is to plant false beliefs in the minds of individuals or large segments of society. If people accept factually incorrect information, they may make decisions harmful to themselves or their communities. Widespread acceptance of falsehoods can lead to detrimental political and social outcomes.

Examples:

• MMR Vaccine Disinformation (1990s onwards): A British doctor, holding a patent for a single-shot measles vaccine, fraudulently claimed a link between the combined MMR vaccine and autism. This disinformation, amplified by media, led to increased fear and a significant drop in vaccination rates. This resulted in preventable outbreaks, hospitalizations, and deaths. Despite the claims being debunked and the doctor losing his medical license, the lie persists, contributing to vaccine hesitancy globally. The attack was initially motivated by financial gain but had devastating public health consequences.
• 2020 United States Presidential Election: Disinformation campaigns, starting years before the election, aimed to undermine trust in the electoral process by repeatedly asserting the likelihood of fraud. These narratives laid the groundwork for claims of a stolen election after the results were known. Much of this disinformation originated domestically and was spread through coordinated efforts. While the election outcome was upheld, the persistent belief in the "big lie" among some segments of the population demonstrates the long-term impact of such campaigns on political stability and social cohesion.

Successfully convincing people of falsehoods often relies on exploiting existing biases, fears, and lack of critical information literacy.

Tips for Detecting Disinformation:

Educational initiatives recommend simple steps individuals can take:

1. Diversify Sources: Don't rely on a single source or platform, especially social media. Consult multiple reputable news outlets at local, national, and international levels.
2. Beware of Sensationalism: Be skeptical of headlines designed to shock or provoke strong emotions.
3. Fact-Check Broadly: Don't just rely on one fact-checking site or ask friends. Look for verification across multiple credible sources.
4. Trace the Source: Ask who originally said something, where, and when. Investigate the credibility of the source.
5. Consider Motivation: What might be the agenda or conflict of interest of the person or group spreading the information? Are they selling something, promoting a political view, or seeking attention?

Undermining Correct Information

Sometimes the goal isn't to implant a specific false belief, but rather to erode confidence in established facts or expert consensus. By casting doubt on accurate information, disinformers create an environment where it's difficult for people to discern truth from falsehood, making them more susceptible to manipulation.

Example:

• Broad Impact of Vaccine Disinformation: While the initial MMR disinformation aimed to promote a competing product, its broader impact was to fuel general fears about all vaccines. The attack on one specific vaccine type eroded belief in the entire field of vaccinology and medical research supporting it. This makes populations vulnerable to outbreaks of preventable diseases and creates skepticism towards public health guidance.

Creation of Uncertainty

Disinformation campaigns often deliberately aim to confuse and overwhelm the audience. This isn't a side effect; it's a strategic objective. By sowing doubt and uncertainty, opponents can be undermined, preventing effective action or unified resistance.

A significant tactic, often associated with state-sponsored campaigns (like those from Russia), is the "firehose of falsehood." This involves:

Firehose of Falsehood: A propaganda model characterized by being high-volume and multichannel, continuous and repetitive, ignoring objective reality, and ignoring consistency. The goal is not necessarily to persuade but to confuse, overwhelm, and distract the audience.

The purpose is not necessarily to make people believe one specific lie, but to make them doubt everything. When one false narrative is debunked, another immediately replaces it. This strategy is about distraction and denial.

Countering this is difficult because creating falsehoods is much faster than verifying the truth. False information tends to spread farther and faster online, possibly due to its novelty or emotional appeal. A more effective countermeasure than debunking every single lie is to raise awareness of how disinformation works and the tactics it uses, allowing individuals to recognize attacks before they are affected (psychological inoculation).

Another counter-strategy is to focus on the disinformers' real objective and counter that directly. For example, if disinformation aims to suppress voter turnout, the counter-effort should focus on empowering voters and providing clear, authoritative information about the voting process.

Undermining of Trust

Beyond specific facts, disinformation campaigns target the fundamental trust that underpins a functioning society. By attacking the credibility of institutions like science, government, and the media, disinformers make populations more vulnerable to manipulation and less likely to accept legitimate information.

This erosion of trust has tangible consequences, impacting everything from public health responses to policy decisions. When people don't trust scientists, they may disregard crucial advice (e.g., on pandemics or climate change). When they don't trust the government or media, they are more likely to turn to alternative, potentially unreliable, sources.

Example:

• COVID-19 Vaccine Disinformation: Campaigns specifically targeted the credibility of the vaccines themselves, the researchers and organizations developing them (e.g., pharmaceutical companies, public health bodies), the healthcare professionals administering them, and the policymakers supporting them. This disinformation directly contributed to vaccine hesitancy and lower vaccination rates in some areas. Studies suggest countries with higher pre-existing levels of trust in society and government were more effective in mobilizing against the virus.

Distrust in traditional media is often linked to increased reliance on social media for news, creating a feedback loop where individuals are further exposed to potential disinformation. Strengthening independent media and promoting transparency can help rebuild trust.

Undermining of Credibility

A direct tactic is to attack and discredit individuals and organizations who might oppose the disinformation narrative due to their expertise or position. Targets include politicians, government officials, scientists, journalists, activists, and human rights defenders. By destroying their credibility, the disinformers can neutralize opposition and make their own narratives seem more plausible.

Examples:

• UAE "Dark PR" Campaign: A report detailed how the UAE allegedly paid for "dark PR" campaigns to create negative Wikipedia entries and publish propaganda articles against opponents, including companies and individuals with perceived ties to political rivals. This directly aimed to undermine the credibility and reputation of targets, leading to severe consequences like bankruptcy.
• Attacks on Scientists: Documented extensively in books like Merchants of Doubt, disinformation campaigns funded by industries like tobacco and fossil fuels have a long history of attacking the credibility of scientists who published findings inconvenient to their profits (e.g., linking smoking to cancer, fossil fuels to climate change). Scientists researching COVID-19, climate change, and other sensitive topics have faced harassment and attacks on their credibility. Prominent figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci, a respected infectious disease expert, have been subjected to intimidation, harassment, and death threats fueled by disinformation.

Disinformation campaigns against scientists often incorporate elements of truth, manipulate data, or highlight normal scientific uncertainty as a sign of fundamental disagreement or lack of consensus. They leverage this "doubt strategy" to suggest no action is necessary or possible. Countering these attacks requires not only presenting accurate information but also explaining the process of science and exposing the motivations behind the attacks (e.g., financial interests).

Despite the challenges, social media also offers scientists unprecedented opportunities for direct public communication, potentially increasing public knowledge and trust if navigated effectively.

Undermining of Collective Action, Including Voting

Disinformation aims to disrupt or prevent collective action, whether it's forming public health policy, organizing protests, or voting. By manipulating public opinion and sowing division, disinformers can hinder coordinated efforts and prevent inconvenient outcomes.

Voting is a critical target. Disinformation campaigns seek to discourage specific groups from voting, amplify uncertainty about the importance of voting, or spread false information about the logistics of voting (where, when, how).

Examples:

• Kenyan General Election (2017): A significant percentage of Kenyans reported encountering disinformation, and a substantial number felt unable to make informed voting decisions as a result.
• Targeting Specific Voter Groups: Campaigns often use microtargeting to deliver tailored messages designed to suppress turnout among specific demographic groups (e.g., racial minorities). Bots and fake accounts amplify messages questioning the value of voting or promoting conspiracy theories about the electoral process.
• Voter Suppression Tactics: This can include circulating incorrect dates, times, or locations for polling places, or creating confusion about eligibility or registration requirements.
• 2020 US Democratic Primaries: Disinformation narratives spread regarding the safety of voting methods like mail-in ballots, potentially influencing people's decisions on whether and how to vote during the pandemic.

Microtargeting: The practice of sending tailored messages to small groups of people based on their demographic data, online behavior, and consumer preferences. In disinformation, this is used to deliver highly specific manipulative content to individuals identified as potentially susceptible or valuable targets (e.g., likely voters in a key demographic).

Geofencing: The use of GPS or RFID technology to create a virtual geographic boundary, enabling software to trigger a response when a mobile device enters or leaves a particular area. Disinformation campaigns can use this to target people physically present in specific locations (e.g., churches, community centers) with tailored messages.

Undermining of Functional Government

Disinformation strikes at the heart of democratic governance, which relies on the idea that citizens can access truthful information and use it to make informed decisions. Foreign and domestic actors use disinformation campaigns to gain political and economic advantage by weakening opponents and eroding the rule of law.

Disinformation targeting elections is critical, but campaigns also undermine the day-to-day ability of governments to function by sowing distrust, creating gridlock, and legitimizing attacks on public servants.

Reports indicate that organized social media manipulation campaigns, often involving disinformation, are active in a large and increasing number of countries globally, operating "on an industrial scale."

Examples:

• Russia's Internet Research Agency (IRA): This state-linked entity spent significant resources on social media ads and content to influence the 2016 US presidential election, confuse the public on issues, and sow discord. They leveraged user data for microtargeting, specifically aiming to erode trust in the US government among certain groups and discourage voting among others.
• French Presidential Election (2017): Analysis showed a significant amount of disinformation linked to specific political communities. Bots played a role in amplifying content, often peaking just before the election to maximize impact. The #MacronLeaks campaign illustrated how disinformation spreads rapidly through coordinated human and automated activity.
• "Conspiracism Without Theory": This describes a new form of political manipulation that relies on repeating false statements and hearsay without building a coherent, factually grounded theory. The repetition itself, amplified digitally, creates an "illusory truth effect" where claims seem more believable simply because they are heard often, even if initially recognized as false.

Illusory Truth Effect: The tendency to believe information is correct after repeated exposure, even if the information was initially perceived as false. Digital platforms, especially social media with rapid sharing and bot amplification, can exploit this effect.

Confirmation Bias: The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. Algorithms that show users more content similar to what they've engaged with can reinforce this bias.

Filter Bubble: A state of intellectual isolation that can result from algorithms showing a user only information and opinions that conform with their existing beliefs, based on their online activity.

Echo Chamber: An environment where a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered. Often occurs within tightly knit online communities or partisan media consumption.

Domestic actors can also use disinformation to cover up electoral corruption by discrediting independent monitors and promoting false narratives of legitimacy. Independent monitoring and transparent electoral data are crucial countermeasures.

Increasing Polarization and Legitimizing Violence

Disinformation attacks deliberately amplify extreme positions and deepen political polarization, often demonizing opponents. Countries with existing political divisions and low trust in institutions are particularly vulnerable.

Examples:

• Russia's Strategy Against NATO/Ukraine: Russia has used disinformation and propaganda as part of a "hybrid warfare" strategy against countries like Ukraine and potentially NATO members. The goal is to sow doubt, intimidate adversaries, erode trust in opposing institutions, and boost Russia's narrative. Tactics include circulating vast numbers of stories, doctored images, and deepfakes, often promoting themes like portraying Ukraine as Nazi-controlled or blaming Ukrainian forces for damage and atrocities. The "Deny, deflect, distract" pattern is frequently observed.
• Fueling Hate Speech and Aggression: Fear-mongering and conspiracy theories, often spread via disinformation, are used to promote exclusionary narratives and normalize hate speech and aggression against specific groups. Historical examples, like the use of propaganda leading up to the Holocaust, starkly illustrate how disinformation can facilitate mass atrocities.

Elections are particularly high-risk periods, where the emotional intensity, coupled with disinformation campaigns, can increase the likelihood of individual violence, civil unrest, and mass atrocities. Recognizing disinformation as a "threat multiplier" for atrocity crimes is essential to mobilize governments, civil society, and platforms to prevent both online manipulation and offline harm.

Hybrid Warfare: A military strategy that blends conventional warfare, irregular warfare, and cyberwarfare with other influencing methods, such as disinformation campaigns, fake news, diplomacy, and foreign electoral intervention. The goal is to destabilize an opponent without necessarily resorting to open, large-scale combat.

Channels of Digital Disinformation Spread

Disinformation can spread through various channels, but digital platforms have become the most efficient and scalable mechanisms for manipulation.

Scientific Research

One significant target is the credibility of science itself, particularly on controversial public health or environmental issues. Disinformation campaigns exploit the public's lack of familiarity with scientific processes and the inherent uncertainty involved in research.

Example:

• Leaded Gasoline and Tobacco Industry Tactics: Campaigns dating back to the 1920s (leaded gasoline) and 1950s (tobacco) established a "disinformation playbook" that continues today. This playbook involved:
  • Funding biased research designed to produce desired conclusions.
  • Hiring "experts" who would advocate for industry positions, often creating a monopoly on research in a specific area.
  • Attacking the credibility of independent scientists who presented inconvenient findings ("critics were described as 'hysterical'").
  • Shifting the burden of proof onto public health advocates, demanding "uncontestable proof" of harm before regulations were considered, rather than requiring industry to prove safety first.
  • Using the inherent uncertainty in scientific findings (scientists rarely claim 100% certainty) to argue that "doubt means there is no consensus," thereby delaying action.

This "doubt strategy" deliberately reframes normal scientific discourse as uncertainty or disagreement, aiming to erode public trust in science. Decades of such campaigns have contributed to significant public skepticism. Digital platforms amplify this by providing easy avenues to spread distorted or manipulated scientific information, often taken out of context or presented alongside seemingly equally weighted, but unfounded, counter-claims ("false balance").

Traditional Media Outlets

While social media is dominant, traditional media can also be channels for disinformation, sometimes intentionally, sometimes by being tricked or through partisan bias.

Examples:

• State-Funded News Channels: Channels like Russia Today are explicitly funded by governments to broadcast internationally. While presenting themselves as news outlets, they often serve as platforms for propaganda and conspiracy theories designed to promote the state's agenda and depict adversaries negatively.
• Partisan Media: In many countries, traditional media has become increasingly partisan. Outlets explicitly aligned with a political viewpoint may selectively report, frame information in a biased manner, or even spread disinformation that supports their political goals. Some outlets even "masquerade" as local news sources to gain trust while pushing partisan content.

A key disinformation tactic in traditional media is undermining the public's understanding of scientific consensus. By giving disproportionate airtime or weight to fringe views, a "false balance" is created, making it seem as though there is significant scientific disagreement when there is a strong consensus. Countering this requires clearly communicating the weight of evidence and the extent of expert agreement.

Social Media

Social media platforms are the primary engine for large-scale digital disinformation attacks. Their architecture and business models are particularly susceptible to manipulation.

Social Media Manipulation: The use of automated accounts (bots), fake profiles, paid trolls, and algorithmic exploitation to artificially amplify certain messages, suppress others, create false trends, and polarize online discourse.

Mechanisms and Use Cases:

• Rapid Dissemination Tools: Apps designed for coordinated sharing (like the Islamic State's "Dawn of Glad Tidings" app, which used real user accounts to auto-tweet propaganda) demonstrate how tools can be built to quickly spread narratives across platforms.
• "Disinfo-for-Hire": Individuals and companies are paid to create and spread false content, often for financial gain (payments, ad revenue). These actors may work for various clients, sometimes promoting multiple, even contradictory, issues, driven solely by profit.
• Monetization Practices: The business model of social media and online advertising incentivizes user engagement above accuracy. Sensational, emotional, or controversial content, including disinformation, often drives higher engagement. Algorithms are designed to keep users clicking and scrolling, prioritizing content likely to achieve this, which can inadvertently (or intentionally) amplify false narratives.
  • Hybrid Monetization: Studies show disinformation purveyors use blended strategies, combining "junk news" clickbait tactics with community-building approaches similar to radical social movements. They attract attention with sensational content, then monetize through donations, merchandise sales, advertising, or membership fees.
• Exploiting Algorithms: Algorithms learn from user behavior. If a user clicks on or engages with disinformation, the algorithm is likely to show them more similar content, reinforcing existing beliefs (confirmation bias) and creating filter bubbles and echo chambers. Bots and fake accounts can artificially inflate the engagement metrics of disinformation, tricking algorithms into promoting it further to real users.

Social media's design, driven by data collection and the need to maximize user attention for advertising revenue, makes it a fertile ground for digital manipulation through disinformation.

Social Engineering

Digital manipulation often leverages fundamental aspects of human psychology – a practice known as social engineering in the context of cybersecurity and persuasion. Disinformation attacks are often considered a type of psychological warfare.

Social Engineering (in manipulation context): The use of psychological manipulation to trick users into making security mistakes or divulging sensitive information. In the context of disinformation, it refers to manipulating human emotions, biases, and social dynamics to spread false beliefs and influence behavior.

Psychological Warfare: Actions that are transmitted via any medium with the objective of influencing the enemy's state of mind so that it behaves according to the originator's will. Disinformation attacks utilize psychological techniques to manipulate target populations.

How Psychology is Exploited:

• Emotion: Emotionally charged content (fear, anger, excitement) is highly persuasive and spreads quickly online. Disinformation deliberately uses emotional triggers to bypass critical thinking.
• Cognitive Biases: Stereotyping, confirmation bias, and selective attention make people more receptive to disinformation that aligns with their existing views or prejudices.
• Social Dynamics: Disinformation campaigns exploit the desire for social belonging. By associating narratives with specific identity groups or communities, they reinforce group affiliation and discourage dissent. Influencers and group leaders can mobilize followers ("engaged followership") to spread narratives or attack opponents, creating dynamics akin to online mobs or cults.

By understanding and manipulating these psychological phenomena, disinformers make their attacks more potent and viral, driving the spread of false beliefs and desired behaviors.

Countering Disinformation Attacks

Addressing disinformation is a complex challenge that goes beyond just identifying and removing false content. It involves technological, social, legal, and individual responses, often raising difficult ethical questions about free speech, privacy, and platform responsibility. It requires a "whole-of-society endeavor."

Legal and Regulatory Measures

Governments grapple with how to regulate disinformation while upholding democratic values like freedom of expression. Authoritarian regimes may use the justification of countering disinformation to restrict legitimate speech and control the internet, contrasting with democratic norms that prioritize transparency and human rights.

Digital Services Act (DSA): An EU regulation that creates a legal framework for online intermediaries, including social media platforms, regarding illegal content, transparent advertising, and disinformation. It imposes stricter obligations, particularly on very large platforms.

Very Large Online Platform (VLOP): Under the EU's DSA, online platforms with more than 45 million active monthly users in the EU are designated as VLOPs and are subject to the strictest obligations, including risk assessments, independent audits, and measures to mitigate systemic risks like disinformation.

• United States: The First Amendment broadly protects speech from government interference, including much speech that might be false but not incite violence, defamation, or fraud. The primary legal approach is often "counterspeech" – relying on the open marketplace of ideas to refute falsehoods. However, the speed and scale of digital disinformation attacks make rapid, coordinated counterspeech difficult. Existing laws on fraud and defamation may apply to a subset of disinformation that causes direct harm or provides unjust gain, but much disinformation may not meet this test.
• European Union: The DSA establishes a framework placing obligations on online platforms, especially VLOPs, to manage illegal content and disinformation, with significant fines for non-compliance. This represents a more proactive regulatory approach compared to the US.
• International Context: Some states (like China and Russia) promote a narrative positioning the US/EU as adversaries in information control, using this to justify restricting internet freedoms and advocating for state control over internet governance, contrasting with calls for a free, open, and globally governed internet involving civil society. Democratic governments must navigate the impact of their own regulations on this international landscape.

Government responses, especially in public health crises like COVID-19, highlight the need for clear, coordinated communication, admitting uncertainty when it exists, and explaining that scientific understanding evolves with new evidence.

Private Sector Actions (Platform Regulation)

Private companies, particularly social media platforms, have the legal ability (in places like the US, due to First Amendment limits on government action) to set their own rules for content moderation. However, they face conflicting pressures: balancing free expression against harmful content, and balancing ethical responsibilities against profit motives driven by user engagement.

• Challenges for Platforms: The business model relies on capturing user attention, which sensational or controversial content excels at. Algorithms, designed to maximize engagement and personalize content, can inadvertently amplify disinformation. Manually fact-checking and moderating content is expensive compared to automated methods, and human moderators can introduce their own biases.
• Platform Tools: Platforms utilize various tools:
  • Algorithmic Detection: Machine learning applications flag content violating terms of service (though less effective against nuanced disinformation).
  • Content Hierarchy/Fact-Checking: Platforms work with fact-checkers to rate content accuracy, using these ratings to "de-rank" or downplay false information in users' feeds.
  • Appellate Systems: Some platforms are implementing systems allowing users to appeal content moderation decisions.
  • Blockchain Technology: Proposed technical solutions include using blockchain to create immutable, transparent records of content origin and spread, making it harder to alter or censor information and easier to trace the flow of disinformation. Tracking message density and forwarding rates via blockchain could also help identify automated bot activity.

Blockchain Technology: A decentralized, distributed ledger technology that records transactions across many computers. The data is grouped into blocks that are chained together cryptographically. Once data is recorded in a block and added to the chain, it is extremely difficult to alter, providing transparency, security, and immutability.

Algorithmic governance raises ethical questions about accountability, potential biases, and the erosion of civic norms. Public opinion on whether platforms should regulate disinformation is growing but remains politically polarized.

Collaborative Efforts

Effectively combating disinformation requires collaboration between the public sector (governments, researchers) and the private sector (platforms, tech companies).

Recommended Strategies:

• Disinformation Detection Consortiums: Bringing together stakeholders to share information and develop mutual defense strategies.
• Information Sharing: Platforms sharing critical data and insights with governments and researchers (while respecting privacy).
• International Coordination: Governments working together to counter transnational disinformation campaigns.
• Human-AI Collaboration: Combining the pattern recognition power of AI with the nuanced understanding and fact-checking abilities of human experts.

However, collaborative efforts face political challenges. In the US, recent years have seen political opposition to both disinformation research and government efforts to work with platforms, leading to legal challenges and attempts to restrict research into online manipulation, sometimes framed as government censorship efforts despite a lack of evidence of coercion.

Strengthening Civil Society

A strong civil society – including independent media, academic institutions, non-governmental organizations, and active citizens – is a crucial defense against disinformation.

Civil Society: The aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens. This includes the family and the private sphere, where people associate to advance common interests, such as cultural groups, NGOs, trade unions, and other associations. In the context of disinformation, a robust civil society contributes to democratic norms, independent information, and collective action.

Ways to Strengthen Civil Society:

• Protecting Election Integrity: Ensuring free and fair electoral processes, allowing independent monitoring and journalistic access, and investigating infractions.
• Rebuilding Trust in Public Institutions: Governments need to communicate transparently and effectively, particularly during crises. National dialogue involving diverse stakeholders can help build consensus.
• Supporting a Healthy Information Environment: Promoting fact-based journalism, media ethics, and financial viability of independent news outlets. Transparency of media ownership is important.
• Collaborative Journalism: Initiatives where multiple news outlets, universities, and NGOs work together to fact-check claims during critical periods like elections (e.g., Verificado 2018 in Mexico, which used a hotline for WhatsApp fact-checking) can effectively reach large audiences and counter false narratives.
• Protecting Vulnerable Actors: Journalists, activists, human rights defenders, and researchers are often targets of disinformation and violence. Their protection is essential, and organizations provide resources and training to help them counter attacks.

Education and Awareness

Building individual resilience against disinformation is a key long-term strategy. This involves widespread media literacy and critical thinking education.

Media Literacy: The ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and create media in a variety of forms. In the context of disinformation, it specifically includes the skills to critically evaluate information sources, identify manipulation tactics, and understand how algorithms and platforms shape the information consumed.

Critical Thinking: The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.

• Integrating Education: Countries like Finland and Estonia have integrated critical thinking and media literacy into their public education systems from an early age to build resilience against information warfare.
• Teaching Practical Skills: Curricula can teach students how to use fact-checking websites, identify sensational headlines, check URLs, and understand basic science/health concepts to spot misinformation.
• Interactive Tools: Games like the Cranky Uncle game use psychological principles to "inoculate" players against specific disinformation tactics (e.g., fake experts, cherry-picking data) by making them actively recognize and counter these methods.
• Inoculation Theory: A psychological approach suggesting that exposing people to a weakened version of a persuasive argument, along with counterarguments, can make them more resistant to stronger versions of that argument later. Applied to disinformation, this involves preemptively warning people about common tactics before they encounter specific false messages. Short videos explaining tactics like fearmongering or using emotional language can be effective.
• Lateral Reading: Instead of deeply scrutinizing a single source for flaws, opening multiple tabs and searching for what other reputable sources say about the original source or the claim being made. This helps verify credibility quickly.
• Debunking Strategies: Research shows the most effective way to debunk is often a "truth sandwich": Start with the true facts, introduce the false claim as misleading information before stating the lie, explain why it's false, and finish by reinforcing the truth.
• Self-Reflection: Helping individuals understand their own biases, emotional vulnerabilities, and online behaviors (e.g., tendency to share based on emotion) can make them more aware of how they might be targeted by microtargeting.
• Social Norms: Encouraging social norms that value accuracy, thoughtful engagement, and skepticism towards sensational or unsourced content can discourage the spread of disinformation within communities.

Education and awareness equip individuals with the tools to navigate the complex digital information environment and become more resilient to manipulation.

---