Taiwanese protestors at a march in June attacked pro-Chinese media and called for tighter regulation. A report in the Economist describes how China seeks to influence Taiwan’s election, scheduled for next January. As an example it cites a story that reached
I am featured about 50 minutes into "After Truth," a documentary by Andrew Rossi, discussing my work in the 2017 US Senate special election in Alabama. We used real information about Roy Moore that was flying under the radar of Republican voters. What we learned in that experiment is that such campaigns will only ever have a real effect on an extremely close election. They do not really move the needle very much. Instead, the most damaging use of such a campaign is disclosure after a very close election. IOW you can't really get candidates elected, but you can undermine the winner of a close election.
Fascinating finding about how little disinformation moves the needle. If that is the case, what is truly the role of disinformation in warfare and international crises? Given what I have seen in the US context, it feeds on the already weak minded, conspiracy vulnerable in the body politic and energizes them to act with a voice that is louder than the truth and facts. So in that sense, disinformation amplifies the differences that were already under the surface, but may have been dormant for quite some time.
I also would hypothesize, in the US context and maybe even in the Brexit movement, certain political influencers are financially vested to the source of foreign disinformation, though in ways that may not be so transparent.
Thanks. That seems right to me.
I am featured about 50 minutes into "After Truth," a documentary by Andrew Rossi, discussing my work in the 2017 US Senate special election in Alabama. We used real information about Roy Moore that was flying under the radar of Republican voters. What we learned in that experiment is that such campaigns will only ever have a real effect on an extremely close election. They do not really move the needle very much. Instead, the most damaging use of such a campaign is disclosure after a very close election. IOW you can't really get candidates elected, but you can undermine the winner of a close election.
Fascinating finding about how little disinformation moves the needle. If that is the case, what is truly the role of disinformation in warfare and international crises? Given what I have seen in the US context, it feeds on the already weak minded, conspiracy vulnerable in the body politic and energizes them to act with a voice that is louder than the truth and facts. So in that sense, disinformation amplifies the differences that were already under the surface, but may have been dormant for quite some time.
I also would hypothesize, in the US context and maybe even in the Brexit movement, certain political influencers are financially vested to the source of foreign disinformation, though in ways that may not be so transparent.
Much as I appreciate Lawrence's essays. this was one I felt I could do without. It is all so predictable
We are bombarded with such tracts