While drinking coffee, I caught up with messages and some of the discussions on #disinformation and #Fimi revolved around the question whether we need precise definitions (to know the threat in detail) or if we need fuzzy terminology (to not be locked in a narrow scope). Noooooow, I got strong opinions on this (🤓) but really want to hear from the community what you think!

So - trying out the voting button here, but would also love to hear some arguments from everyone, in particular from @potemkinvillage but also anyone else, in the comments 😁

@Sina @potemkinvillage Since I started this discussion by saying I prefer fuzzy definitions and this kind of poll is exactly the reason I prefer fuzzy definitions in my work since it now triggered a completely meaningless discussion causing unnecessary conflict. My point isn’t that everyone should use one or the other but that everyone should use whatever suits them in their work. Though always be explicit about how they define a term. (No Vote)

@rasmusdotse @potemkinvillage thanks for elaborating and actually, i don't see a conflict here! I enjoy diverse discussions, be they about terminology or things. I feel that they help me develop my own thinking further, especially if we are not all of the same opinion 😁 I think defining things helps, also I believe that if we agree on definitions things can get easier, like exchanging and comparing assessments and insights.

But that's me and exciting discourse needs pluralistic views! And I would support you totally in your point that we should be transparent in the terminology we use so everyone can make up their mind!

So I do apologise if you have the impression that this is a conflict, because that's not at all what I intended and how I feel about this discussion 😊

@Sina @potemkinvillage I don’t mean it is a conflict though it might lead to one since the poll from my point of view creates a false dichotomy between fuzzy or strict. I often use very strict definitions of fuzzines. Like stating that something isn’t measurable or that I mean an entity with some known properties and some predicted but unexplored properties and possibly some unknown properties. Or that the boundaries of a groupmor class of entities are unknown.

@rasmusdotse @potemkinvillage Oooh, ok, now I'm very interested so you mean that speaking about definitions in general, there are often things that cannot be exhaustively described because some of their attributes are unknown or we don't have enough data on. Right? I agree with you that in those cases, of course we cannot precisely define the thing (would be quite problematic if we would pretend otherwise I guess).

My posts and my poll however were focused on the topic of #disinformation and on that specific topic, I think we do need clear definitions because they help us be more clear about what we want to adress. As I said I am genuinely curious to hear other opinions and have many *many* discussions about this.

I don't know what your area of research is, but would be interested to hear more from you 😁

@Sina @potemkinvillage Yes, since I study the future a lot of things are by definition unkown. We can’t even measure how the present state of things are. All data representing something statistically significant are by definition a picture of the past.

I see the term disinformation as problematic. Disinformation is a term with way to many possible meanings and it makes it almost useless. A term with way to many possible meanings isn’t fuzzy, it’s just bad and should be avoided.

@rasmusdotse @Sina @potemkinvillage every term, from fascism to communism and democracy, has many possible meanings. What matters is to define them first and then proceed with the argument. I see disinformation as an absolutely essential term. I don't see how can have any conversation if we simply start by saying that no term is universally specific enough.

@aristeon @potemkinvillage @Sina There are lot’s of other more specific terms, some mentioned here, like active measures, foreign nations influence operations narrative structures of propaganda, weaponization of terminology/information/events and so similar. All these have meanings that might be defined in several ways but they still have roughly equivalent meanings which makes them more useful.

@rasmusdotse @potemkinvillage @Sina I see absolutely no problem with disinformation defined as "false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth". It's used in academia, journalism, and by the US govt.

https://www.state.gov/disarming-disinformation/
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation

@aristeon @rasmusdotse @potemkinvillage

In my opinion, if we look at the problem / challenge as it is, it's not just disinformation, it's not just the *content*.

The definition leaves out all the other aspects that are part of such activity, most notably the TTPs used to artificially amplify etc. And many use the word "disinformation" to describe these aspects too, even though the definition doesn't really cover these elements.

@Sina @rasmusdotse @potemkinvillage

I would argue that what you're referring to falls under the category of "methods of disinformation". In a book, there would be a chapter dedicated to explaining them.

I'm not sure how the other suggested terms could possibly implicitly convey so much detailed information about this phenomenon.

@aristeon @rasmusdotse @potemkinvillage hm, you could argue that. Small example why I think it's a bit different - the famous Internet Research Agency (Kremlin troll farm) paid people to push out content - so far so good as per the definition.

However, in cases the content was not false or misleading, it was accurate. But it was pushed out by people who got paid to do that, not because they wanted to share this due to their own interests ans beliefs.

So, is this inauthentic flooding of public discourse with factual information by paid trolls by a foreign government a separate issue? I would argue it's part of the same phenomenon, the manipulation of our information space, but I think disinformation would not cover such activity by definition.

Now I'm gonna get some coffee 😎

@Sina @rasmusdotse @potemkinvillage It depends on how specific you want to be. Disinformation is a subcategory of other phenomena, and I would argue that it is a subcategory of political warfare and cyber warfare.

Russia's non-kinetic warfare includes espionage, hacking, disinformation, recruitment of operatives, etc. Are they all the same phenomenon?

I think that disinformation is a very useful subcategory, and one of the most clearly defined terms.

@aristeon @Sina @potemkinvillage I would say that this thread is a great example of disinformation in the sense that it destroys the informationspace Potemkinvillgae by getting it stuck in an endless arguing about definitions of terminology. A discussion that can not be solved.
Which I might add is a classic technique used by all KGB trained organizations. (And now I just weaponized my own post)

@rasmusdotse INTENT matters ;) @aristeon@tooting.ch @Sina @potemkinvillage

@stephlamy @Sina @potemkinvillage Yes. But whos’s intent? If there is one thing I learnt from studying information warfare it is that intent of a hidden actor can only be determined by the result of an information operation.

@stephlamy @Sina @potemkinvillage Yes but you can’t know if such a publicly stated intention is the real intenation or a false intention meant to confuse about the pirpose of some actions.

In the end there is only the Buddhist view that ALL consequences of an action, regardles of intention, is your karma.

@rasmusdotse Ok, but that's also why frameworks are put in place to reinforce Human Rights commitments and mitigate unwanted consequences & negative externalities. Eg. #DoNoHarm framework, that is kind of baked into #OSINT (transnational collective action) since its inception (Libya, humanitarian aid, Patrick Meier). @Sina @potemkinvillage

@stephlamy @Sina @potemkinvillage question: Do you include counter information warfare as a #osint subactivity or is that outside and need it’s own definition?

@stephlamy Obvioulsy. Though since that time people, lJohn Schindler, has promoted the western definition of intelligence os to limited and that we should use the much wider russian definition, which includes all sorts of active measures. And in parallel opensource intelligence has come to often include a collective crowd sourcing component, especially the shorform OSINT. So how do we label a crowd sourced counter active measures op like #NAFO ?
@potemkinvillage