04-09-2024, 04:07 PM
This post was last modified 04-09-2024, 04:08 PM by Maxmars. Edited 1 time in total.
Edit Reason: spelling
I aligned the thread title with the article title because it seemed proper...
From DarkReading.com: 'Unfaking' News: How to Counter Disinformation Campaigns in Global Elections
Subtitled: What cybersecurity professionals around the world can do to defend against the scourge of online disinformation in this year's election cycle.
Being as I am, I found several instances of statements with which I take exception. Not calling it misinformation... but opting instead to declare it simply "incorrect" or "incomplete" ... although those are among the hallmarks of misinformation itself. Certainly, it isn't disinformation because only a pretentious fool (or a government) would think that whatever they publish is to be taken as "doctrine."
Excerpted problem statements
... Given that it is difficult to directly compromise election systems used to vote and count votes, adversaries turn to the age-old psychological manipulation technique to get the desired outcomes: no hacking needed...
Because "psychological manipulation" actually works? Perhaps to an extent... but only if the audience has no choice but to accept it.
What is being intimated here, but not directly saying, is that people, en masse, acquiesce to any single "bullet" of misinformation... but do they? Is there sociological and psychological verification to this idea? I've heard some real doozies regarding some politician celebrities - and I don't know anyone who actually 'believes' them. Fetal tissue cannibalism, depraved rape parties, organized pedophile abuse communities, dark ritualistic magic ceremonies, sex, torture and murder clubs, just to name a few.
Does that last sentence create a hazard for misinformation? Only the audience can collectively say... I just expressed the things in my mind. Would that make me a purveyor of misinformation? Of course, anyone can claim so... it's the "victim's gambit."
In a sense, disinformation is like a cyber threat: As security leaders, we realize that malware, phishing attempts, and other attacks are a given.
And hereby does the author - speaking on behalf of the community he servers - declares why "Cyber" professionals have a role to play in "controlling" the dialogue.... great, more middlemen. Never mind that it is the very professional-level knowledge germane to their field that make the 'cyberthreat' real. Never mind that there is no guarantee that cyber professionals might actually impose their "personally derived agenda" on what they are controlling. That, like journalists who while decrying "misinformation/disinformation" in alarm... proceed to do that very same thing... only it's acceptable - because it's them... "balanced and fair."
The author continues with a list of examples of misinformation... except that it is more entrenchment of the idea that anyone who sees misinformation is, in fact, misinformed. A good example reads as below...
...In Pakistan, voters have been exposed to false Covid-19 and anti-vaccination propaganda, ...
Why just Pakistan as exemplary? We all well-know that the information referred to as "false Covid-19 and anti-vaccination propaganda," is a global authority code for "information that challenges our official narrative and actual intentions" and therefore, should be 'forbidden.' We have all directly witnessed the narrative crafters ruthlessly fighting the dissenters... and we all know that the 'argument' is not settled... and that's a Pakastani problem? Why, only because of elections?
We are offered some definition with the article:
Let's be clear here about the difference between disinformation and misinformation: The latter is information that is wrong, but not intended for mass distribution. The "fake news" distributor may not even be aware of its inaccuracies.
Disinformation, on the other hand, occurs when an entity (such as an adversarial nation-state) knowingly leverages misinformation with the intent of viral distribution.
The key here seems to be the 'distribution.' The definition seems to forgive "misinformation" as long as it is not 'intentionally' widely shared... a distinction of intent. On the other hand, intentionally creating "viral" distribution seems a stretch - until we realize that these malicious actors have at their disposal hordes of fake identities which all spam the internet with messages and "likes" inflating the algorithmic responses THEY built into the system to automatically promote the 'ranking' and propagation of the information in question. Add the monetization angle, and abuse will definitely ensue.
My point is the trope of "voter stupidity" must be resisted on all fronts. Voting is something that citizens do. It isn't "fun" or "entertaining" - it's not supposed to be... it has a purpose.
Voters are not "sheep" no matter what the 'vested' commenters say. It is the perennial proclamation of practically all political commenters that voters are 'victimized' by the utterances of any "non-sanctioned" or 'unapproved' sources because voters are so simple-minded that will believe and then propagate anything. The narrative is that over-the-top memery and slanderous jabs are a cancer within the voting exercise. As if they hadn't been there since campaigning and voting began centuries ago.
Truthfully, that's only a monumental issue when their 'side' loses or is sure to lose - because by definition - that majority is wrong...
The lists of "popular" tomfoolery in the political communications world are nearly endlessly vast. Suggestive ideas of politicians being so morally deprived, criminally afflicted, or exclusively self-serving comes as the natural amplification of satirical commentary. NEVER is any one person or even group proven guilty, just accused as part of their game-counter-game. Because some have been demonstrated to be untrustworthy, it's everyone's problem. Because the media "runs with anything that's outrageous," it's everyone's problem. Because there are hordes of paid interests profiting from the disinformation, it's everyone's problem.
It is incorrect that most people don't "think" about what they are being exposed to... but the political class, and the elite in particular, have been trying for so long, and with such sustained effort, to convince everyone that "citizens are stupid" that they have come to believe it themselves, and act as if it were true. That belief has forged their communications to the point of nearly making them into an exercise in idiocy.
"Teach your children well..." if they learn from you, and not the talking heads, they will know how to think for themselves.
From DarkReading.com: 'Unfaking' News: How to Counter Disinformation Campaigns in Global Elections
Subtitled: What cybersecurity professionals around the world can do to defend against the scourge of online disinformation in this year's election cycle.
Being as I am, I found several instances of statements with which I take exception. Not calling it misinformation... but opting instead to declare it simply "incorrect" or "incomplete" ... although those are among the hallmarks of misinformation itself. Certainly, it isn't disinformation because only a pretentious fool (or a government) would think that whatever they publish is to be taken as "doctrine."
Excerpted problem statements
... Given that it is difficult to directly compromise election systems used to vote and count votes, adversaries turn to the age-old psychological manipulation technique to get the desired outcomes: no hacking needed...
Because "psychological manipulation" actually works? Perhaps to an extent... but only if the audience has no choice but to accept it.
What is being intimated here, but not directly saying, is that people, en masse, acquiesce to any single "bullet" of misinformation... but do they? Is there sociological and psychological verification to this idea? I've heard some real doozies regarding some politician celebrities - and I don't know anyone who actually 'believes' them. Fetal tissue cannibalism, depraved rape parties, organized pedophile abuse communities, dark ritualistic magic ceremonies, sex, torture and murder clubs, just to name a few.
Does that last sentence create a hazard for misinformation? Only the audience can collectively say... I just expressed the things in my mind. Would that make me a purveyor of misinformation? Of course, anyone can claim so... it's the "victim's gambit."
In a sense, disinformation is like a cyber threat: As security leaders, we realize that malware, phishing attempts, and other attacks are a given.
And hereby does the author - speaking on behalf of the community he servers - declares why "Cyber" professionals have a role to play in "controlling" the dialogue.... great, more middlemen. Never mind that it is the very professional-level knowledge germane to their field that make the 'cyberthreat' real. Never mind that there is no guarantee that cyber professionals might actually impose their "personally derived agenda" on what they are controlling. That, like journalists who while decrying "misinformation/disinformation" in alarm... proceed to do that very same thing... only it's acceptable - because it's them... "balanced and fair."
The author continues with a list of examples of misinformation... except that it is more entrenchment of the idea that anyone who sees misinformation is, in fact, misinformed. A good example reads as below...
...In Pakistan, voters have been exposed to false Covid-19 and anti-vaccination propaganda, ...
Why just Pakistan as exemplary? We all well-know that the information referred to as "false Covid-19 and anti-vaccination propaganda," is a global authority code for "information that challenges our official narrative and actual intentions" and therefore, should be 'forbidden.' We have all directly witnessed the narrative crafters ruthlessly fighting the dissenters... and we all know that the 'argument' is not settled... and that's a Pakastani problem? Why, only because of elections?
We are offered some definition with the article:
Let's be clear here about the difference between disinformation and misinformation: The latter is information that is wrong, but not intended for mass distribution. The "fake news" distributor may not even be aware of its inaccuracies.
Disinformation, on the other hand, occurs when an entity (such as an adversarial nation-state) knowingly leverages misinformation with the intent of viral distribution.
The key here seems to be the 'distribution.' The definition seems to forgive "misinformation" as long as it is not 'intentionally' widely shared... a distinction of intent. On the other hand, intentionally creating "viral" distribution seems a stretch - until we realize that these malicious actors have at their disposal hordes of fake identities which all spam the internet with messages and "likes" inflating the algorithmic responses THEY built into the system to automatically promote the 'ranking' and propagation of the information in question. Add the monetization angle, and abuse will definitely ensue.
My point is the trope of "voter stupidity" must be resisted on all fronts. Voting is something that citizens do. It isn't "fun" or "entertaining" - it's not supposed to be... it has a purpose.
Voters are not "sheep" no matter what the 'vested' commenters say. It is the perennial proclamation of practically all political commenters that voters are 'victimized' by the utterances of any "non-sanctioned" or 'unapproved' sources because voters are so simple-minded that will believe and then propagate anything. The narrative is that over-the-top memery and slanderous jabs are a cancer within the voting exercise. As if they hadn't been there since campaigning and voting began centuries ago.
Truthfully, that's only a monumental issue when their 'side' loses or is sure to lose - because by definition - that majority is wrong...
The lists of "popular" tomfoolery in the political communications world are nearly endlessly vast. Suggestive ideas of politicians being so morally deprived, criminally afflicted, or exclusively self-serving comes as the natural amplification of satirical commentary. NEVER is any one person or even group proven guilty, just accused as part of their game-counter-game. Because some have been demonstrated to be untrustworthy, it's everyone's problem. Because the media "runs with anything that's outrageous," it's everyone's problem. Because there are hordes of paid interests profiting from the disinformation, it's everyone's problem.
It is incorrect that most people don't "think" about what they are being exposed to... but the political class, and the elite in particular, have been trying for so long, and with such sustained effort, to convince everyone that "citizens are stupid" that they have come to believe it themselves, and act as if it were true. That belief has forged their communications to the point of nearly making them into an exercise in idiocy.
"Teach your children well..." if they learn from you, and not the talking heads, they will know how to think for themselves.
