Disinformation: Hogue & Beyond (split from Foreign Interference thread)

[Lumber]

The inquiry's report said while allegations of interference involving elected officials nabbed the most headlines and motivated debate in the House of Commons, misinformation and disinformation "pose an even greater threat to democracy."

Actors spread disinformation about candidates and elected officials who express views that diverge from their own interests to try and prevent these candidates from getting elected, and to affect policy choices and positions, the report found.

It calls disinformation "noxious" and "powerful," and says it is used as a retaliatory tactic.

I'd love to start a thread on ideas on how to combat this.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Split requested & granted.

Here, for a bit more background, is what the Hogue Commission had to say on this one in its final report ....



Relevant recommendations ...

 

[Halifax Tar]

What counts as disinformation?

 

[Remius]

What counts as disinformation?

If I recall my recent cyber awareness course disinformation is information that is purposefully designed to cause harm, manipulate or send people down the wrong path.

 

[Halifax Tar]

If I recall my recent cyber awareness course disinformation is information that is purposefully designed to cause harm, manipulate or send people down the wrong path.

That's all very subjective. But it's what I would expect from a bog standard definition.

For me the only way to combat disinformation is with the correct information and accepting some people will fall for the wrong stuff.

 

[QV]

The challenging part for the public is separating disinformation from truth. Matt Taibbi talks about the disinformation over the last 8 years on Tucker Carlson (I know half you folks think Tucker is a quack - but Taibbi certainly isn't) a lot has been learned and will be learned in the coming months and years about COVID, the Biden administration's time, etc.

When your own government is spreading or creating disinformation to the public - Houston, we have a problem. The question is then, who should be the arbiter of what information is true and what is disinformation?

 

[Remius]

That's all very subjective. But it's what I would expect from a bog standard definition.

It’s pretty much the definition. A lot of it cut and dry. If I call people and tell them their polling station is closed and to go to the other side of town whithbthe intent to discourage voting and influence their vote. That is disinformation. If I tell my friends that that I heard the polls might not open because of a storm that might be misinformation. Slight difference. Both are false but one is purposefully causing harm.

For me the only way to combat disinformation is with the correct information and accepting some people will fall for the wrong stuff.

Some people will never be convinced.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"information that is purposefully designed to ... manipulate" covers much political and opinion journalism content. I can guess that they'll want to make exceptions for themselves.

 

[Remius]

"information that is purposefully designed to ... manipulate" covers much political and opinion journalism content. I can guess that they'll want to make exceptions for themselves.

No. It’s actually false information used in those circumstances. Not information per se.

 

[The Bread Guy]

What counts as disinformation?

Good question. Here's how CSE's Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (handout attached) defines it ...

Defining misinformation, disinformation and malinformation (MDM)

MDM can be identified as three main forms of informational activity that can cause minor or major harm.

• Misinformation refers to false information that is not intended to cause harm.
• Disinformation refers to false information that is intended to manipulate, cause damage, or guide people, organizations, and countries in the wrong direction.
• Malinformation refers to information that stems from the truth but is often exaggerated in a way that misleads and causes potential harm

... here's a more generic take from the GoC's page ...

What is online disinformation​

Disinformation is false information that is deliberately intended to mislead. It is sometimes called “fake news”.


Misinformation is false information that is shared without the intention of misleading.

... and a bit from PCO (presented to Hogue's commission) aimed at public servants (also attached as CAN034019_0001):

 

[Lumber]

That's all very subjective. But it's what I would expect from a bog standard definition.

For me the only way to combat disinformation is with the correct information and accepting some people will fall for the wrong stuff.

Case in point:

Trump recently posted on Twitter that he sent the military into California and using "emergency powers", they forcebaly turned on water pumps that had ostensibly been turned off for some environmental reason. However, numerous news sites including the California water commission immediately corrected Trump and explained that the 3 pumps were federally run pumps and had been down for 3 days for maintenance. Nothing more to it.

I first saw this Trump post/story being shared by some Trump MAGA sycophant, who was praising Trump for his decisive action against the corrupt and failed California government. When people piled on with the proof that this was not what Trump claimed it was, his response was to call everyone a bunch of retarded democratic cucks (and various other things).

So, clear disinformation, with credible shared "correct" information, but he still refused to believe, and instead doubled down and got combative.

How do you fix stupid?

 

[ArmyRick]

Back on to "misinformation". My way? I try to get my sources on political stuff from Far right, FAR LEFT, centerish and look for the facts. It also helps to look at unedited videos of what politicians say and do, make sure you get the full context.

For example, I am suspecting (not 100% sure) that Chandra Arya getting booted out of the LPC leadership race had more to do with his ties with Modi (Left and right news sources say they have met in 2024) and less to do with his lack of Francais. I suspect meaning I don't know for sure.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... who should be the arbiter of what information is true and what is disinformation?

Good question. So far, Hogue report recommends "a government entity," which could range from a truly arms-length body like PBO all the way to a branch of an already-existing ministry, or something in between.

The challenging part for the public is separating disinformation from truth ...

Or "gradations" of truth, if you want to look at it that way - this from the CSE handout (highlights mine) ....

Types of information

• Valid information means that it is factually correct, is based on data that can be confirmed, and isn’t misleading in any way.
• Inaccurate information is either incomplete or manipulated in a way that portrays a false narrative.
• False information is incorrect and there is data that disproves it.
• Unsustainable information can neither be confirmed nor disproved based on the available data.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

No. It’s actually false information used in those circumstances. Not information per se.

If you only report selected facts and leave other pertinent facts unreported, is it disinformation, false or just plain biased? I have no problems with a forum, magazine or Newspaper that boldly proclaims it's political leanings and then writes about issues and current affairs, then everyone know what their bias is. What I don't trust is MSM, claiming they are a neutral reporting body, when they clearly are not.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Case in point:

Trump recently posted on Twitter that he sent the military into California and using "emergency powers", they forcebaly turned on water pumps that had ostensibly been turned off for some environmental reason. However, numerous news sites including the California water commission immediately corrected Trump and explained that the 3 pumps were federally run pumps and had been down for 3 days for maintenance. Nothing more to it.

I first saw this Trump post/story being shared by some Trump MAGA sycophant, who was praising Trump for his decisive action against the corrupt and failed California government. When people piled on with the proof that this was not what Trump claimed it was, his response was to call everyone a bunch of retarded democratic cucks (and various other things).

So, clear disinformation, with credible shared "correct" information, but he still refused to believe, and instead doubled down and got combative.

How do you fix stupid?

Good example. How long before it becomes a political tool to down play wrong speak or incompatible ideas ?

Like the lab leak theory. That was deep racist disinformation at one point.

I mean the idea is great, yup we should grapple on to it; I just don't trust anything out there to do it in an unbiased manner.

 

[The Bread Guy]

If you only report selected facts and leave other pertinent facts unreported, is it disinformation, false or just plain biased?

Depends on the intent, I guess. The CSE would call that "inaccurate": incomplete or manipulated in a way that portrays a false narrative. Sounds like it's the "why" that brings it into disinformation territory or not - is it "intended to manipulate, cause damage, or guide people, organizations, and countries in the wrong direction" or "information that stems from the truth but is often exaggerated in a way that misleads and causes potential harm"?

Having witnessed more than a few federal government processes for figuring out what's what based on what someone else says/decides, when it comes to "a government entity" deciding which pigeonhole some info-bit fits into, all I can say is ...

 

[Lumber]

If you only report selected facts and leave other pertinent facts unreported, is it disinformation, false or just plain biased? I have no problems with a forum, magazine or Newspaper that boldly proclaims it's political leanings and then writes about issues and current affairs, then everyone know what their bias is. What I don't trust is MSM, claiming they are a neutral reporting body, when they clearly are not.

In a "free" society, actually any society, you have to accept a certain level of "bad" and/or "failure". There is certain levels/types of "MDM" that you, we think, will just have to accept. For example, the habit of MSM to under report stories that are negative toward their preferred political side, and to over report stories that are negative toward the opposite side (and vice versa). A truly "unbiased" news agency should have an ethical duty to report all the news, but legally they don't have to. They could make the argument "it is our honest opinion that these other stories are genuinely more important", and you just have to accept that, even if you know they're bull shitting you, because free speech and all.

Now, going to the opposite end of the spectrum, I think it should be illegal to spread blatantly false information, like with the Trump twitter post I referred to earlier. It's flat out not the truth, and shouldn't be allowed. I would also include in this category information that itself isn't completely false if it's presented in away that is blatantly untrue. There's numerous examples of "doctored" videos where someone important says something like "... All Jews are Bad.', and it's spread to make that person look bad, but the actual video had that person saying "Ernzt Zundel's positions was, basically, all jews are bad."

However, in the middle is where it gets tricky. I don't know if the middle area (that I'll describe in a sec) is causing more damage than the blatant falsehoods, but it certainly would be the hardest to address. This is information that is partially true, but manipulated to serve a purpose, or "inaccurate" as the CSE would call it.

 

[OldSolduer]

No. It’s actually false information used in those circumstances. Not information per se.

In other words false information is a lie, pure and simple.

 

[lenaitch]

The challenging part for the public is separating disinformation from truth. Matt Taibbi talks about the disinformation over the last 8 years on Tucker Carlson (I know half you folks think Tucker is a quack - but Taibbi certainly isn't) a lot has been learned and will be learned in the coming months and years about COVID, the Biden administration's time, etc.

Their Supreme Court threw a pretty wide blanket over a lot of that so some people may be disappointed.

 

[Remius]

In other words false information is a lie, pure and simple.

Essentially but the context I’d if it’s used maliciously. Disinformation vs misinformation. Both are false and lies.