From: Mark Crispin Miller
The 15 Rules of Web Disruption
David Martin’s Thirteen Rules for Truth Suppression, H. Michael Sweeney’s 25 Rules of Disinformation (and now Brandon Smith’s Disinformation: How It Works) are classic lessons on how to spot disruption and disinformation tactics.
We’ve seen a number of tactics come and go over the years. Here are the ones we see a lot of currently.
1. Start a partisan divide-and-conquer fight
or otherwise push emotional buttons to sow discord and ensure that
cooperation is thwarted. Get people fighting against each other
instead of the corrupt powers-that-be.
Use baseless caricatures to rile everyone up. For example, start a
religious war whenever possible using stereotypes like “all Jews are
selfish”, “all Christians are crazy” or “all Muslims are terrorists”.
Accuse the author of being a gay, pro-abortion limp-wristed wimp or
being a fundamentalist pro-war hick when the discussion has nothing to
do with abortion, sexuality, religion, war or region. Appeal to
people’s basest prejudices and biases. And – as Sweeney explains – push
the author into a defensive posture:
Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule … Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
2.
Pretend it’s hopeless because we’ll be squashed if we try. For
example, every time a whistleblower leaks information, say “he’s going
to be bumped off”. If people talk about protesting, organizing,
boycotting, shareholder activism, spreading the real facts, moving our
money or taking other constructive action, write things to scare and
discourage people, say something like “we don’t have any chance because
they have drones and they’ll just kill us if we try”, or “Americans
are too stupid, lazy and greedy, so they’ll never help out.” Encourage
people to be apathetic instead of trying to change things.
3.
Demand complete, fool-proof and guaranteed solutions to the problems
being discussed. For example, if a reporter breaks the story that the
big banks conspired to rig a market, ask “given that people are selfish
and that no regulation can close all possible loopholes … how are you
going to change human nature?”, and pretend that it’s not worth talking
about the details of the market manipulation. This discourages people
from reporting on and publicizing the corruption, fraud and other real
problems. And it ensures that not enough people will spread the facts
so that the majority know what’s really going on.
4.
Suggest extreme, over-the-top, counter-productive solutions which will
hurt more than help, or which are wholly disproportionate to what is
being discussed. For example, if the discussion is whether or not to
break up the big banks or to go back on the gold standard, say that
everyone over 30 should be killed because they are sell-outs and
irredeemable, or that all of the banks should be bombed. This discredits
the attempt to spread the facts and to organize, and is simply the web
method of the provocateur.
5. Pretend that alternative media – such as blogs written by the top experts in their fields, without any middleman – are untrustworthy or
are motivated solely by money (for example, use the derogatory term
“blogspam” for any blog posting, pretending that there is no original or
insightful reporting, but that the person is simply doing it for ad
revenue).
6.
Coordinate with a couple of others to “shout down” reasonable
comments. This is especially effective when the posters launch an
avalanche of comments in quick succession … the original, reasonable
comment gets lost or attacked so much that it is largely lost.
7. Use an army of sock puppets. You can either hire low-wage workers in India or other developing countries to “astroturf” or – if you work for the government – you can use hire military personnel and subcontractors to monitor social media and “correct” information which you don’t like (and see this), or use software which allows you to quickly create and alternate between numerous false identities, each with their own internet address.
8. Censor social media, so that the hardest-hitting information is buried. If you can’t censor it, set up “free speech zones” to push dissent into dank, dark corners where no one will see it.
9. When the powers-that-be cut corners and take criminally reckless gambles with our lives and our livelihoods, protect them by pretending that the inevitable result - nuclear accidents, financial crises, terrorist attacks or other disasters – were “unforeseeable” and that “no could have known”.
10. Protect the rich and powerful by labeling any allegations of criminal activity as being a “conspiracy theory”. For example, when Goldman gets caught rigging markets, label the accusations as mere conspiracies.
The following 4 tactics from Sweeney are also still commonly used …
11. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and
instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being
critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known
as the “How dare you!” gambit.
12.
Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s
argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and
the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply
exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent
arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest
charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which
appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while
actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
13.
Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent
or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be
fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in
Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of
new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism
reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing
issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would
dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
14.
Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to
imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or
other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the
defensive.
15.
Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man
usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will
make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with.
Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and
have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans.
Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can
usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as
simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much
the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original
source.
Postscript:
Over a number of years, we’ve found that the most effective way to
fight disruption and disinformation is to link to a post such as this
one which rounds up disruption techniques, and then to cite the disinfo
technique you think is being used.
Specifically,
we’ve found the following format to be highly effective in educating
people in a non-confrontational manner about what the disrupting person
is doing:
Good Number 1!
Or:
Thanks for that textbook example of Number 7!
(include the link so people can see what you’re referring to.)
The reason this is effective is that other readers will learn about the
specific disruption tactic being used … in context, like seeing wildlife
while holding a wildlife guide, so that one learns what it looks like
“in the field”. At the same time, you come across as humorous and
light-hearted instead of heavy-handed or overly-intense.
Try it … It works.
No comments:
Post a Comment