Communication has been weaponized, used to provoke, mislead and influence the public in numerous insidious ways. Disinformation was just the first stage of an evolving trend of using information to subvert democracy, confuse rival states, define the narrative and control public opinion.
Using the large, unregulated, open environments that tech companies once promised would “empower” ordinary people, disinformation has spread rapidly across the globe.
The power that tech companies offered us has become a priceless tool in propagandists’ hands, who were right in thinking that a confused, rapidly globalizing world is more vulnerable to the malleable beast of disinformation than straightforward propaganda. Whatever we do, however many fact-checking initiatives we undertake, disinformation shows no sign of abating. It just mutates.
While initially countries that were seasoned propagandists, such as Russia and North Korea, were identified as the main culprits, the list of states employing disinformation is growing.
China is apparently using disinformation to portray Hong Kong protesters as proxies of nefarious Western powers and violent rioters, potentially to prepare the ground for more violent intervention to suppress the movement.
India has been the host of constant disinformation campaigns, either ahead of the recent elections or during the current standoff with Pakistan over Kashmir.
Lobbying and public relations firms now have professionalized online disinformation, as the cases of Sir Lynton Crosby’s CTF Partners in the UK and the troll farms in the Philippines indicate.
The next stage in the weaponization of information is the increasing effort to control information flows and, therefore, public opinion, quite often using — ironically enough — the specter of disinformation as the excuse to do so.
Internet shutdowns made headlines recently during India’s communications blackout in Kashmir, but they have already become commonplace in Africa. Access Now has reported that Internet shutdowns between 2016 and last year more than doubled.
According to some reports, the app used by protesters in Hong Kong to coordinate, Telegram, also received a distributed denial of service attack from mainland China.
The control of information can take more benign forms, too, such as the total disintegration of the White House press briefings that have made US President Donald Trump’s Twitter the de facto mouthpiece for the US executive, or the attempt by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to establish a direct channel of communication with his audience through Facebook.
Removing regulated, accountable and experienced journalists from the equation can only be deleterious to the public interest. The fourth estate is a fundamental part of our political systems.
The never-ending series of social media privacy and political scandals proves that tech companies are not able to play that role — and in any case, they do not want to.
The third stage in the weaponization of information might be even worse.
As invasive and stealth data mining practices are becoming commonplace, we might soon be dealing not just with disinformation or communications blackouts, but with mass-scale surreptitious manipulation through nudging.
Karen Yeung, a professor at Birmingham Law School, has used the term “hypernudges” to define adaptable, continuously updated and pervasive algorithmically driven systems that provide their subjects — us — with highly personalized environments that define our range of choices by creating a tailored view of the world.
According to IBM, 2.5 quintillion bytes of data is created every day. Data sets containing personal information — obtained via our online engagements with people or companies — are becoming more elaborate and expansive. Even though the analysis necessary to obtain useful insights from them can overcome human capacity, artificial intelligence systems and their algorithmic models can fare much better.
Communication mediated through hypernudging can gradually shift our moral values, norms and priorities. YouTube recommendations and their alleged promotion of far-right content in Brazil, causing the radicalization of certain users, was a form of nudging — unwitting as the tech company claimed it was.
However, intentional nudging using models built on our individual preferences and vulnerabilities will become much more impactful in the future.
While the effectiveness of personalized propaganda, such as that employed by Cambridge Analytica, might still be debatable, there is no doubt long-term nudging can be powerful — if not to swing a close election, maybe to increase apathy or foment dissent and distrust towards our institution. The possibilities for manipulation are endless.
Still, to categorize the weaponization of communication as “information warfare” could distract us from the fact that the root of the problem is not information per se. We have to address the fact information manipulation is employed by political actors taking advantage of regulatory and legal vacuums to change power dynamics.
They use the technology of companies unsupervised for so long that they have acquired sufficiently dominant market positions to lobby themselves out of government regulation, while traditional media remain seemingly unable to resist the hijacking of the news agenda by divisive actors seeking to amplify their agenda via clickbaity disinformation.
In the midst of this, people remain confused, disempowered or too petrified to reclaim our agency and confront this attack on our information space and our digital rights. Reclaiming our privacy is the first step. We are going to need it if we are to stand a chance of resisting the information weapons being used to discipline and control us.
Sophia Ignatidou is an academy fellow at Chatham House, researching AI, digital communication and surveillance.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS