“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” Thomas Pynchon
I don’t know about you, but I find it incredibly frustrating when I come up hard against a commenter on the internet whom I consider a ‘Disinformationist’ or a ‘Disrupter’ .
We all know them, if not immediately at first contact, then ultimately by their behaviour.
Or, at least I hope we all might be able to better spot them by the end of this helpful ‘How to’ recognise them heads-up.
It may save you the time you may otherwise have expended engaging with them in order to try and change their minds. Because you won’t.
They do not exist to be persuadable.
Let’s just start by understanding what Disinformation is(from Wikipedia):
Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.
Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout).
Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can affect such control. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and discrediting the opposition by association with many easily disproved false claims.
Such are the sorts of verbal attacks that we see every day, from Left and Right, from one or another group, political party or individual commenter, against one or another party. Of course, globally, but specifically in our own neck of the internet woods. Mainly on other blogs because this one is moderated by active not passive moderators.
Passive Mods on other blogs appear to be hog-tied to Jay Rosen’s ‘Voice From Nowhere’ paradigm, assuming an objective perspective that sits back to let all flowers have the chance to bloom equally on their blog, even if some of them are the equivalent of internet weeds. In contrast with Active Mods, such as we are here, who are constantly on the look-out for the blog trolls that simply seek to disinform and disrupt. Who then get weeded out, so as to keep the garden blooming, unchoked with deliberate distractions from the disrupters. Who seem to be just like any other commenter, until you start to see some constant similarities to the way they, and others of a like mind, go about their posting.
So, as a service to us all I just thought I might outline some of the ways they do this so you can tell them apart from people who genuinely have a different point of view to you. Basically so that you don’t waste your precious time and energy on trying to change their minds, with facts and rational argument. Such people will never change their mind because that is not the reason they are where they are, interacting forcefully with you. They are trying to spread manure in the garden to burn the flowers and allow the weeds to grow and take over.
Eight Signs of a Disinformationist
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, unless engaged in faux ‘constructive input’ such as a Gish Gallop, generally avoiding the citing of references. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies THEIR authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues well.
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic under discussion. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Aggressively Mainstream/Anti-Conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for non-mainstream or ‘conspiracy theories’ and almost always are defending the official narrative of your political opponents.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and nonacceptance, no matter how condemning the evidence, they simply deny everything you present as evidence, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem counterproductive.
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes sometimes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic and simply being interested in an intent to disrupt the flow of an argument which is trending towards their opposition
8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News/Social Media Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when envoys of an empowered player are involved in a cover up or disinformation operation:
- ANY Blog/Social Media posting by a targeted ‘truth teller’ can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The envoys of the empowered players can afford to have people sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. Since disinfo in a Blog/Social Media setting only works if the reader sees it-fast response is called for, or the visitor may be swayed towards the truth.
- Or, when dealing with a rebuttal to a truth in the public arena, such as in the form of a chain disinformation email, a delay in the response usually occurs. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.
- In any News Media/Social Media forum, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same, usually 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted ‘truth teller’, or their comments, are considered more important with respect to their potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked more than once for the same sin.
Well, there you have it. A rough outline of what I believe we are up against, as web warriors for the Progressive cause, as we go into battle on a daily basis for what we believe in and wish to defend.
I’m not saying that the above is true of every encounter with the ‘enemy’ that we have, just to be aware that probably not all of them are ‘weekend warriors’, just engaging in the verbal battle for altruistic reasons simply. I’m pretty sure that eloquent exponents in our corner, the Progressive corner, are well known to the o(O)pposition, and are targeted accordingly so they don’t become too influential in the day to day ideological debate that has started to go on since the internet and other forms of Social Media flung open the Doors of Perception.
THE PUB 
Great. They’ve spun the wheel and it’s all the way back around to Boats! again. The circle of possible smears grow smaller by the day.
Speaking of boats, at Senate Estimates Kate Lundy reduced Michaelia Cash to a splutter when she called her out for trying to politicize asylum seekers.
At this rate QT could be QI.
C K Watt,
That was Kelly O’Dwyer MP You know the one with the whopping big mouth who replaced Costello
Plenty of yellows. Reds can’t be far away.
Albo to Pyne: “You’re not in charge!”
Abbott opens up with Boats! – they must be getting desperate. PM reckons Abbott “voted for more boats” in parliament. Pyney cops a yellow.
Now bringing security into boats in a supp. PM quickly rebuffs, amid a lot of noise. Another warning from the Speaker.
POO disallowed. PM resumes reinforces that she’s increased funding and staffing putting to lie that they’ve been cut. Abbott back again. Still trying to claim there’s some sort of cut. PM gives him a lesson in reading the budget. Abbott trying to table a document. Albo objects and wins.
Well it does appear that the Member for Holt is running interference. And who may it be?
Surprise. Surprise. A Ruddite!
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=008K0
Quite an amazing effort by Abbott. That matter was cleared up yesterday. Unless he’s got some new information – and it seems all he had was yesterday’s comments – he’s wasting everyone’s time.
Muskiemp
Thanks yeh got it now, the main problem for me is that I have a picture of said bigmouth in my head and am trying to get rid of it, someone please post a pretty picture to help me retrain my brain.
Jaycee
I’m digitising Kodak ‘slides’ from the 60’s. My father was a picture taker.
Prominent is ‘Trixie’ a big Roan girl. She was a horse rather than a pony.
She made it to 26.
When we were children we used to get on her from the wood heap.
She was good at judging the rider and would go just fast enough.
I don’t know where my father got her from but she was properly trained: she’d pull a sulky and tent-pegging was also a favourite thing.
My father was a competent rider and every now and again he’d find 5 or 6 sticks and take her out to see them stuck in the ground, reins hanging over his shoulder, and obstacles in the way.
My father had either a broomstick or a shovel handle in the shed so after setting out the sticks he’d get on board and very lightly tap her on the shoulder and let Trixie attack the course.
The way she’d do it was magic to watch – an amble to line up and then a full charge – she understood that getting it done quickly was the aim of the game.
One of my father’s Army friends was very good on horseback – I can remember Rex riding Trixie in full amble through a Wheat Stubble.
Childhood memories.
Tone’s long hops are met with lofted straight drives. If he is not careful he’ll cop one between the eyes.
Swanny gets a nice dixer and throws in the praise from Bill Gates in his answer. Usual stuff about building for tomorrow, which does draw a sharp distinction between them and the opps on this, and their half-arsed approach.
Abbott back again on on security. Dreyfus cops a yellow. Gillard sticks to script. Abbott on a POO. Sat down. PM back on budget figures and facts. Looks like she’ll have to do the “Budget for Dummies” version. Looks like Bronny was trying to POO, but knocked back. Now Pyne up on a pointless POO. Down again. PM making sure she spells out why she is relevant. Turns it back on to the 12,000 cuts.
And boofhead talks over Julia’s answer.
Rob Oakeshott is having a bit of fun. The Oops are not happy.
Albo joins in the fun.
Albo goes for a SSO to give Tone 3 minutes to respond.
Member for Aston smirks as he is red-carded.
Attempted reverse wedgie. It’ll be interesting anyway. The Coalition’s attitude on climate change is pretty weak.
Tone trots out DAP. Albo got what he wanted. Tone fell for it, hook, line and sinker.
Carbon Tax!
Julia is laughing at him.
Member for Bowman booted.
Now Oakeshott, hoping to also get in Abbott (denied by Speaker) on accepting the science of climate change. PM agrees that she accepts. Pity the Speaker didn’t allow Abbott to be asked.
Oaky on a supp about commitment to reduction in CO2. PM, restricted to her own side, but mentions that it has been bipartison to date. Albo stirs thins up by mentioning that he’d allow Abbott to reply. No. Albo tries through a SSO to allow Abbott to address the House on AGW and the 5% reduction.
Member for Aston booted. Abbott gets up to explain where he stands on AGW. This’ll be good. Starts airy fairy. Still sticking with Direct Action. Walking into a trap, I suspect. Claiming his DA will work and the government’s will not. What a laugh. At least he’s managed to balance the troglodytes with the actual climate change believers. The rest is bullshit. Missed who was booted.
Member for Tangney booted.
And here comes the riposte for Tony.
Part one was only partially successful. Here comes part two, as Gillard gets a dixer on the same subject.
Tudge, Laming and Jensen gone.
Ctar1…some people are a natural with horses….I’m not one of them!…I’m always a bit leery with horses..and they know it too!..oh, I like them well enough and I handle our three big warmbloods every say…but I handle them cautiously…..none of this “reins hanging over the shoulder” stuff!
Just yesterday, my big mare “Cindy”” took offence at our small standardbred cutting in on her territory while I was leading her and she spun around and took off at him with me “riding her neck”and “emu-stepping” till I got her under control again!……..one thing you don’t do in such times, under NO circumstances, is let go!
They can be “fun” sometimes.
Tone is NOT happy.
Abbott will reduce carbon emissions by regulating that carbon dockside is weightless.
Thought so. Another dixer for the PM on climate change. PM loosens up for a blast, amid another booted. She’s not holding back. Going through the failures of Abbott’s scare claims. Hits him hard with facts. Seems to be doing this with some glee. (Hadley will be ropeable about Oakey being in this setup). But a pretty savage kill.
Now the Kooyong guy back this time on holding a terrorist. PM uses the occasion to whip Morrison’s efforts to stir up. POO from Pyne trying to tell the Speaker what she must do. Sat down. PM sums up, taking no prisoners.
Big Dick Adams asks a question on polio eradication. PM waxes lyrical on vaccination against polio. Wondering if she’d take a shot at the anti-vaccine types, but not going there. Plugs Bill Gates’s work on eradication.
… and announced extra money for polio eradication.
Tone was indeed set up. He didn’t have a 3 minute speech ready so had to go the rant.
Dreyfus booted.
Asking Randall to rephrase is a big ask.
I note that the reaction from the punditocracy is that the tactic was a bad idea and that Tony won out of it. I think that’s short-termist thinking over what is likely a longer-term tactic. It drew Abbott’s Direct Action plan out into the open from whatever hidey-hole he’d put it in. I expect a lot of ALP MPs to be talking about it from here on in. And it’s likely that Abbott can’t do much talking about the Carbon Tax from now on without having to place it in the context of his Direct Action policy. It’s the gateway he has to pass through from here if he wants to criticise the Government’s policy.
It re-sets the context, effectively. I note both Bernard Keane and Grog have missed that aspect.
out to renew passport which gave me a good sentence,
why am I renewing this passport when abbott says he want, give increments
for the pensioners,’ lady in cue says,’ yes , he doesn’t care about us oldies.
we are nothing to him,’,, I said’yes and he says he is a christen.’
to the bank,, same sentence,, gees said teller about 27′,we want be voting for him’, then went on to tell how she was blogging on the guardian last evening and told me some of the , posts,, one which I saw as well.,
so did quite do my 5 today,,
o and I threw in, they are saying in the papers abbotts won.
‘ o that’s just a con’ said the teller.
to the butcher ,s I know who they vote for but mentioned they
abbotts won thing , he said’ yes I noticed that too, no one In the media tells me how to vote’,
so you wonder are Australians smarter than mr. news,
Morrison booted.
Now Simpkins asking a q about a Sri Lankan trying to feed into Morrison’s scares. PM waves away.
Now Garrett gets a chance on education nd mentions how good the Gonski reforms will be for indigenous people. After his bumpy start a few years back, he’s becoming a star. Very positive sales pitch.
Now Randall and “Illegal Arrivals” gives the game away a bit in the question. Albo objects. Pyne tries to counter. Denied but Dreyfus booted.
Randall struggling to rephrase.Pm slaps down with her own earlier answers. I assume this has all come from Peta, but can’t see that it’s getting anywhere. Maybe because they can wring something about Boats! into their stuff. Pyne blabbering again and trying to make a ruling which Anna knocks back. PM now slapping them down a bit about how Morrison got rebuffed by the small ‘L’s. Morrison booted for trying to sneak in ‘hypocrite’.
Member for Cowan booted.
This Coalition tactic is extraordinarily clunky. They’ve set up to use the comments at yesterday’s Senate estimates as a launching pad to attack the Government on cuts to ASIO etc. It’s a complete misrepresentation as there don’t appear to have been any cuts. So every time they try to work with it they get cut off at the knees.
denese
You are doing an excellent job!
That was Simpkins.
thank you for the great commentary,, reminds me of the times
when we listened to the cricked on radio, with Alan Mcgilvray
and he would tap the pencil when the ball hit the bat,
“They lack the wit or the intellect.”
thanks victoira what worries me I s am I talking to the converted
I have only met three suspicious lnp voters , one in the north,]
now they are a worry the bible belt,
is there any photos of pell and abbott on the net
together
Tanya gets a dixer from the other Ferguson. Warms up to her positives. Gets onto some of the opposition inconsistencies on health.
Now Sharman Stone. Still on asylum seekers but slightly different slant. PM turns it right back on them as false and misleading. PPO from Stone. Moved on. PM back onto the slapdown. Rubbing it in. Says the claim made is false. Gives Stone a bit of homework. No point-scoring for Peta here.
The government address Anna as “Speaker”; the Oops say “Madame Speaker.” ( = “you woman, you”?)
“Fraudband” gets a go.
Did Anna just say “the member for Turnbull”?
back to boats affirms my dis belief of the polls
The member for Turnbull poos.
the addressing of the speaker we both noticed that in the last sitting term
arrogant, and 1950 mentality,, hope someone points this out on twitter
if abbott got in us woman have to be come suffragettes
all over again