G.O.P. Targets Researchers Who Study Disinformation Ahead of 2024 Election

Say it aint so · Jun 20, 2023

On Capitol Hill and in the courts, Republican lawmakers and activists are mounting a sweeping legal campaign against universities, think tanks and private companies that study the spread of disinformation, accusing them of colluding with the government to suppress conservative speech online.

The effort has encumbered its targets with expansive requests for information and, in some cases, subpoenas — demanding notes, emails and other information related to social media companies and the government dating back to 2015. Complying has consumed time and resources and already affected the groups’ ability to do research and raise money, according to several people involved.

They and others warned that the campaign undermined the fight against disinformation in American society when the problem is, by most accounts, on the rise — and when another presidential election is around the corner. Many of those behind the Republican effort had also joined former President Donald J. Trump in falsely challenging the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. NYT

Because when disinformation is your political platform, you need to protect it.

HTacianas · Jun 20, 2023

Say it aint so said:
On Capitol Hill and in the courts, Republican lawmakers and activists are mounting a sweeping legal campaign against universities, think tanks and private companies that study the spread of disinformation, accusing them of colluding with the government to suppress conservative speech online.

The effort has encumbered its targets with expansive requests for information and, in some cases, subpoenas — demanding notes, emails and other information related to social media companies and the government dating back to 2015. Complying has consumed time and resources and already affected the groups’ ability to do research and raise money, according to several people involved.

They and others warned that the campaign undermined the fight against disinformation in American society when the problem is, by most accounts, on the rise — and when another presidential election is around the corner. Many of those behind the Republican effort had also joined former President Donald J. Trump in falsely challenging the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. NYT

Because when disinformation is your political platform, you need to protect it.

Who determines what is and is not disinformation?

The IbanezerScrooge · Jun 20, 2023

HTacianas said:
Who determines what is and is not disinformation?

Facts? Reality? Context?

Say it aint so · Jun 20, 2023

HTacianas said:
Who determines what is and is not disinformation?

Entities within each group or there are groups where examining disinformation is their whole charter, and of course reality.
I know the NYT has a firewall, but let me include what the GOP is focused on:

"The House Judiciary Committee has focused much of its questioning on two collaborative projects. One was the Election Integrity Partnership, which Stanford and the University of Washington formed before the 2020 election to identify attempts “to suppress voting, reduce participation, confuse voters or delegitimize election results without evidence.” The other, also organized by Stanford, was called the Virality Project and focused on the spread of disinformation about Covid-19 vaccines.

So those who provide information regarding the election tactics the GOP has and is indeed enacting, and their disdain for having covid disinformation corrected.

Hans Blaster · Jun 20, 2023

HTacianas said:
Who determines what is and is not disinformation?

It's not about "who" but "how" to determine what is disinformation.

durangodawood · Jun 20, 2023

HTacianas said:
Who determines what is and is not disinformation?

Welcome to the new "conservative" post modernism.... where there is no truth, just competing narratives.

Hans Blaster · Jun 20, 2023

durangodawood said:
Welcome to the new "conservative" post modernism.... where there is no truth, just competing narratives.

I so dislike postmodernism.

HTacianas · Jun 20, 2023

Say it aint so said:
Entities within each group or there are groups where examining disinformation is their whole charter, and of course reality.
I know the NYT has a firewall, but let me include what the GOP is focused on:

"The House Judiciary Committee has focused much of its questioning on two collaborative projects. One was the Election Integrity Partnership, which Stanford and the University of Washington formed before the 2020 election to identify attempts “to suppress voting, reduce participation, confuse voters or delegitimize election results without evidence.” The other, also organized by Stanford, was called the Virality Project and focused on the spread of disinformation about Covid-19 vaccines.

So those who provide information regarding the election tactics the GOP has and is indeed enacting, and their disdain for having covid disinformation corrected.

Would campaigning for office on a platform of scaring people into not getting a covid vaccination count as disinformation?

Hans Blaster · Jun 20, 2023

HTacianas said:
Would campaigning for office on a platform of scaring people into not getting a covid vaccination count as disinformation?

Sounds more like bio-terrorism. The disinformation in this case would be the specific false claims against vaccinations.

Brihaha · Jun 20, 2023

"I don't want my staff educated!"
New republican election slogan.

Marjorie Taylor Greene

Kale100 · Jun 20, 2023

In the topic of misinformation/disinformation, it is helpful to keep in mind how information can be transmitted. Let's use science as an example...
1) A scientist or team of scientists conduct an experiment > write a paper > publish their results in an academic journal
2) A science journalist writes an article interpreting the highlights/conclusions of the article, readable to the scientifically literate.
3) (Usually) A more general journalist working for a news company interprets that article to a level understandable by the public. Often the level that is understandable by the public has little to no relation to what the scientists actually concluded, because those who aren't scientists don't have the requisite scientific knowledge to understand the methods or the study, no matter how they are explained.

As a hobby scientist myself, I see this and other things all the time.
- A journalist might publish an article with outdated information
- Scientific articles will often fall short by adhering to a more conservative/traditional dataset, i.e. not incorporating new data, which can lead to imprecise or even patently false conclusions. In relation to above, it might be a newly conducted study, a new publication, but since the data the scientists were using is outdated, the study was outdated from the onset.
- Scientists (especially in quick evolving fields) might tackle a question from different angles, and reach contradictory conclusions, I've seen this happen in the very same journal publication. Who is spreading disinformation if someone cites Scientist A who concludes 'X hypothesis is true', and someone else cites Scientist B who concludes 'X hypothesis is false'?

I understand this last comment will be seen as inflammatory in one way or another, but it's true.
To what extent it applies to real world circumstances is debatable, but it is essential to understand....
We can't know every fact, nobody can possess expertise in every field, we need other people to interpret facts for us. A fact is not trustworthy if you can't trust the person interpreting it / relaying it to you.

DaisyDay · Jun 20, 2023

Kale100 said:
In the topic of misinformation/disinformation, it is helpful to keep in mind how information can be transmitted. Let's use science as an example...
1) A scientist or team of scientists conduct an experiment > write a paper > publish their results in an academic journal
2) A science journalist writes an article interpreting the highlights/conclusions of the article, readable to the scientifically literate.
3) (Usually) A more general journalist working for a news company interprets that article to a level understandable by the public. Often the level that is understandable by the public has little to no relation to what the scientists actually concluded, because those who aren't scientists don't have the requisite scientific knowledge to understand the methods or the study, no matter how they are explained.

As a hobby scientist myself, I see this and other things all the time.
- A journalist might publish an article with outdated information
- Scientific articles will often fall short by adhering to a more conservative/traditional dataset, i.e. not incorporating new data, which can lead to imprecise or even patently false conclusions. In relation to above, it might be a newly conducted study, a new publication, but since the data the scientists were using is outdated, the study was outdated from the onset.
- Scientists (especially in quick evolving fields) might tackle a question from different angles, and reach contradictory conclusions, I've seen this happen in the very same journal publication. Who is spreading disinformation if someone cites Scientist A who concludes 'X hypothesis is true', and someone else cites Scientist B who concludes 'X hypothesis is false'?

I understand this last comment will be seen as inflammatory in one way or another, but it's true.
To what extent it applies to real world circumstances is debatable, but it is essential to understand....
We can't know every fact, nobody can possess expertise in every field, we need other people to interpret facts for us. A fact is not trustworthy if you can't trust the person interpreting it / relaying it to you.

Your scenario is not disinformation which is deliberately misleading for nefarious purposes.

What journalists need to know about the psychology behind disinformation - Journalism Institute

Journalists are amid a perfect storm of disinformation, threats to their work, and lagging resources to support local news outlets. Add in the essential role of journalism to defend against the erosion of our democracy, and practitioners face a critical moment to find solutions to the...

www.pressclubinstitute.org

Kale100 · Jun 20, 2023

Agreed, that was to some degree my point. Do you think it could be called disinformation however if the actors at step 2 or 3 are writing with ill intent?

EDIT: Also I thought of another observation. Since science is ideally about sharing data and replicability, there are also instances of data being public, but no formal publications existing to address it, thus being left to the public to interpret. How do you fact check a bunch of amateur scientists of differing knowledge levels, motives, etc.?

Hans Blaster · Jun 20, 2023

Kale100 said:
Agreed, that was to some degree my point. Do you think it could be called disinformation however if the actors at step 2 or 3 are writing with ill intent?

EDIT: Also I thought of another observation. Since science is ideally about sharing data and replicability, there are also instances of data being public, but no formal publications existing to address it, thus being left to the public to interpret. How do you fact check a bunch of amateur scientists of differing knowledge levels, motives, etc.?

This is about disinformation related to elections, in particular the upcoming national election. So the only science areas to intercept the possible disinformation space would be about COVID (and vaccines) and about climate change. These are both spaces where large amounts of misinformation is already circulating and potentially some disinformation. (OK, climate science disinformation has been circulated for decades by certain industries.) Other disinformation might be about election integrity or facts about candidates positions, and past. None of which are science related.

durangodawood · Jun 20, 2023

Hans Blaster said:
I so dislike postmodernism.

JustOneWay · Jun 20, 2023

HTacianas said:
Who determines what is and is not disinformation?

Those who study facts.

Blade · Jun 21, 2023

HTacianas said:
Who determines what is and is not disinformation?

A great question and if you read just the posts here you have the answer. In todays world its not the facts/truth its how you personally feel about a person. Just going back 30-40 years you could fully disagree with someone's politics yet your best friends still.

Just can't chat about politics any more.. its not "man what they did for the economy just killed it but you know over seas they did a awesome job stopping blah blah blah". Now praise GOD allot still do this. Like John Wayne said.. haha he didn't know he was fully right wing. He said I voted for 5 Dem's and 4-5 Rep. Its wasn't based on some personal feeling about the man or woman. Its about the job they did or didn't do that got his vote. Hes one of those that many actors could not talk about about politics with out some fight yet they loved the man and were great or best friends. Granted he believed in loved the great I am.. you can tell by how they act talk.. the love always shines.. can only come from Him.. believing in the one that died for you loves you so much.

So where ever there is say injustice you don't care.. you do wrong you must pay the price. So disinformation is today seems to be based on where you sit right vs left. Both are wrong.. yet both are right. Fact is you get rid of one.. everything will still fall. We need both.. sorry but 330milion just dont all agree haha

The IbanezerScrooge · Jun 21, 2023

Blade said:
A great question and if you read just the posts here you have the answer. In todays world its not the facts/truth its how you personally feel about a person. Just going back 30-40 years you could fully disagree with someone's politics yet your best friends still.

Just can't chat about politics any more.. its not "man what they did for the economy just killed it but you know over seas they did a awesome job stopping blah blah blah". Now praise GOD allot still do this. Like John Wayne said.. haha he didn't know he was fully right wing. He said I voted for 5 Dem's and 4-5 Rep. Its wasn't based on some personal feeling about the man or woman. Its about the job they did or didn't do that got his vote. Hes one of those that many actors could not talk about about politics with out some fight yet they loved the man and were great or best friends. Granted he believed in loved the great I am.. you can tell by how they act talk.. the love always shines.. can only come from Him.. believing in the one that died for you loves you so much.

So where ever there is say injustice you don't care.. you do wrong you must pay the price. So disinformation is today seems to be based on where you sit right vs left. Both are wrong.. yet both are right. Fact is you get rid of one.. everything will still fall. We need both.. sorry but 330milion just dont all agree haha

You appear to be reading a different forum. All of the answers to this question in this thread... except yours... reference "facts", "reality", "Not about 'who'", etc. No one is saying anything about 'if it's a right winger...' or 'only left-wingers...'

And, this, to me, is the answer to why there is so much disinformation and why so many fall for it. We are literally living in wildly different realities. The one you've referenced above is completely incomprehensible to me. It's baffling. And we all vote.

G.O.P. Targets Researchers Who Study Disinformation Ahead of 2024 Election

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Well-Known Member

Raised by bees

re Member

Raised by bees

Well-Known Member

Raised by bees

Well-Known Member

Active Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Active Member

Raised by bees

re Member

:)

Veteran

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Similar threads