Lies, distortions, misinformation, and twists: democracies face off

ANALYSIS

Forget the pandemic. 2020 was the year of the infodemic. In the past year, social media fueled lies, distortions and twists on social media on topics as diverse as virology, politics, and history. So how do democracies survive in a post-truth world?

Is it a matter of faith. But the impact is real.

Seven out of 10 Republicans are convinced that President-elect Joe Biden has “stolen” the US election. That is 50 million Americans.

But that belief has failed all reality tests. Republican election officials have certified the results. Republican justices have dismissed the challenges as unfounded.

But that reality has been ignored by the power of faith. And that belief has become a weapon.

International analysts say the spin has long since moved out of back rooms full of political advisers. It is no longer just the tool of choice for lobbyists and business advocates. It has become a devastating weapon in the hands of dictators.

According to the European-based think tank Atlantic Council, social media has become a clear and present danger.

“The intentional use of misleading information to influence societies poses a serious threat to the integrity of democratic systems,” their report says.

“Authoritarian states regularly use it to exploit democracies’ open information systems, posing a major threat to national security that requires a determined and concerted response.”

And he has a counterattack plan: “The defense against disinformation has to be rooted in democratic principles and values: transparency, accountability and respect for freedom of expression. We must not become them to fight them.”

ASSAULT ON TRUST

The controversy has long boosted newspaper sales. But in the case of social networks, clicks are equal in cash. Therefore, bringing controversial content to the top of people’s feeds is the fundamental business model of companies like Facebook and YouTube.

And they have found a rich market to exploit.

But, according to Dr. Kate Starbird, these international mega-corporations are beginning to realize the damage they are doing.

“They tried. They were certainly making changes. They were certainly trying to address the issues,” the associate professor of electoral integrity at the University of Washington recently told the Australian Institute for Strategic Policy (ASPI). “I think they had prepared very well for the problems we saw in 2016 around foreign campaigns and [fake] accounts “.

But their results were mixed. The information assault was one they hadn’t prepared for.

“In 2020, what we saw in the United States was not foreign or false. It was disinformation from authentic and, in many cases, verified accounts from political leaders, the media and others who had a large audience.”

Social media platforms tried to tackle this on the fly, but with mixed results.

And it was a politically sensitive scenario where high-profile figures had to have their posts tagged as unreliable. That is why the 2020 elections represent another victory for the aggressors of democracy, he says.

“The outcome of that campaign was probably very successful if its goal was simply to undermine confidence in the results.

“And I think that’s bad for democracy. I think the platforms understand it. I think they will be thinking about what they could do better.

PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE

“There is a reason why we are very vulnerable to this.

“It is part of our human nature, animal in some way, why we are vulnerable to certain types of sensational information and misinformation, things within the group outside the group.”

The voters have not changed. What has changed is the ability of interest groups to manipulate voters. The science of psychology has made great strides.

“To be honest, there are entities in the world that understand how this works and are trying to manipulate these vulnerabilities for their political power,” Starbird said.

The Atlantic Council sees a real danger in this modern political minefield.

“The intentional use of misleading information to influence society represents a serious threat to the integrity of democratic systems,” says their report. Seductive lies “exploit the open information systems of democracies, posing a significant threat to national security that requires a determined and concerted response.”

But the battlefield is delicate.

There are a handful of immensely wealthy and powerful global megacorporations.

And then there are the minds of the voting public.

“I mean, we are vulnerable, psychologically vulnerable,” Starbird said.

“There is something in the way [social and traditional media] Technology is currently being designed that resonates with these types of vulnerabilities. They have created audiences addicted to this type of information. “

FERTILE SOIL

The impact is generational within reach.

The Center for the Future of Democracy at the University of Cambridge has identified a dramatic shift in the beliefs of Millennials, those born between 1981 and 1996.

Just 15 years ago, your generation had great faith in democracy. No more. The turning point was the Great Financial Crisis of 2008.

“Increasing debt burdens, lower odds of owning a home, greater challenges in raising a family, and reliance on inherited wealth rather than hard work and the talent to succeed are all contributing factors. young people’s discontent, “says Dr. Roberto Foa, lead author of the study.

And this collapse of faith in democracy is most evident in the Anglo-Saxon world: the UK, the US and Australia.

And that discontent makes these democracies vulnerable to manipulation.

The Atlantic Council report claims that “disinformation providers” have become more sophisticated. And their tactics are evolving rapidly.

“The line between domestic and foreign misinformation has blurred, with [foreign] agents who use local actors as proxies to carry out disinformation operations ”, it reads.

He claims that Russia has been leading the way in the information war. But “China and other foreign players [Iran, for example] they have also entered the misinformation game. “

But domestic political ambitions are also at stake. And they are often happy to receive help wherever they can find it.

RETREAT OF FIGHT

In 2016, the assault on information was mainly external. The sources were quickly traced to foreign actors based primarily in Russia and North Korea.

But the damage was done. The seeds of discontent had already been planted.

And those seeds paid off in 2020.

Despite being defeated by a greater margin than his own 2016 victory, President Trump remains defiant. So do his followers.

About 48 percent of Republican voters believe Trump will be sworn in on January 20, 2021. Not that he should be. That will be.

Your preferences have hardened. Your beliefs reinforced. His expectations of vote manipulation were prepared.

The results are disturbing.

Philadelphia police recently detained two men in a Q-anon-adorned Hummer with pistols, a semi-automatic rifle and a samurai sword. They declared that they were on their way to “fix things” at a local polling station.

They had broadcast a battle cry on Facebook Live. They responded to a Trump press conference: “They don’t want anyone to watch while they count the ballots,” he declared.

Trump was responding to a viral video on social media where election officials prevented a registered observer from entering the facility. “This is a blow against the President of the United States of America,” declared live streamer Brian McCafferty. But the ‘no video’ posters were on the walls for all to see, and on his signed observer registration form.

However, he was invited to appear on national television and radio talk shows.

THE TRUTH WILL MAKE US FREE

“Unevenly, but constantly, a structure is emerging for democratic defense against disinformation, consistent with the principles of transparency, accountability and respect for freedom of expression,” the Atlantic Council report reads.

Governments in office have historically struggled with these principles. But, once democracy puts them back in opposition, they are suddenly relevant again.

The weakness of democracy is also its strength. What you need is confidence.

The council argues that networks of “disinformation detectors” should be established by civil and government agencies. It should be noted that social media companies consistently enforce internal standards. And governments must act to apply regulatory frameworks to new technologies in the same way that they already apply to traditional print, radio and television formats.

“While defensive measures cannot block all misinformation, they can limit misinformation as more people learn to filter it out on their own,” the report states.

He also recommends counterattacks.

“Offending does not mean spreading disinformation [that would not be consistent with democratic values and democracies aren’t good at it anyway],” it states.

However, it means building digital arsenals capable of tracing the source of disinformation attacks, exposing their actions, and disabling them.

This means more than just a cyber counterattack. The sanctions must target operators and create a costly deterrent for state actors.

And his latest advice will not be welcomed by partisan political parties: They should support independent, investigative and verifiable journalism, as it “harnesses the greatest strengths of free societies dealing with authoritarian adversaries.”

• Jamie Seidel is a freelance writer