@JamesBazan I’m sure you’re right. It’s not the only exchange- there are at least 5 more. One I just blocked outright claiming Dems could have stopped Trump via the GOP primary. Not how it works. We (obviously) don’t control that process.

Lots of my mutuals are following that one, too. I simply worry this stuff might work on some people.

@TonyStark @JamesBazan

I'm seeing increasing activity from Pro-GOP Left accounts too. They're not brand-new accounts, so I suppose this is due to changes in how I'm interacting with the Fediverse, or how they are.

Immediately after Dobbs, Pro-GOP Left messaging was extremely effective in converting pro-choice sentiment into anti-choice action. It was all over national TV news and talk shows, not just on social media.

@barney I've seen that too.
It's almost like 'sleeper cell' activity. Like they've all got pre-2020 join dates but were mostly dormant or innocuous until a few months ago.

it's anecdotal, I haven't really dug into the info, but yeah... there is something there.

I have no idea *why* they're suddenly visible or active, it might just be I'm noticing them but I don't think so.

@TonyStark @JamesBazan

@mentallyalex @TonyStark @JamesBazan

On Twitter, I had a better sense of inauthentic or coordinated propaganda campaigns. Often, nonstandard language revealed ostensibly US accounts to be foreign-based.

The Fediverse is changing so rapidly, I don't as confident making similar assessments here.

I think it's clear that protracted exposure to disinformation and defective journalism has both instilled false factual beliefs, and destroyed rational thinking ability, across all voter segments.

@mentallyalex @TonyStark @JamesBazan

My conclusion is that supplying evidence that corrects false factual beliefs, and/or pointing out invalid reasoning, has potential value in helping voters to realign their behavior to match their own values.

In general I think that change is likely to occur not in the Pro-GOP Left accounts that post false information or magical thinking arguments, but in others who may be following them, or following relevant hashtags.

@barney @JamesBazan @mentallyalex Barney- first I really, really like what you have to say. Glad we met.

How do you suggest dealing with an account who, no matter how many facts (with good, agreed upon sources) you supply, just say “you’re wrong.”

Say for example, the one I hear often that Democrats could have simply codified Roe during Obama, or that Biden can throw Clarence Thomas off the court. (Seriously suggested to me more than once recently.)

@TonyStark @JamesBazan @mentallyalex

Another falsehood I often see is "Biden could expand SCOTUS right now if he wanted to."

I think there is potential value in responding to such false posts with factual information, and including or adding any hashtags that might enhance the ability of one's post to reach other users who may have been induced to believe falsehoods.

Again, the target of such a reply is probably not the account to which one is replying, but others who may see the reply.

@TonyStark @JamesBazan @mentallyalex

Sometimes, a Pro-GOP Left account will reply back to me, restating the same falsehood. I think there's potential value in replying to that reply, again supplying disconfirming evidence.

This is in case someone happens to "tune in" to the conversation late, such that their exposure to the thread stared with the false reply.

@TonyStark @JamesBazan @mentallyalex

However, posting correct information and valid reasoning process only has the potential for positive effect if it reaches someone who believes a falsehood or isn't thinking properly.

If you reply to a low-follower account, and your reply contains no hashtags, then you're really only reaching your own followers, and that is not helpful.

@barney equal challenge of providing bad faith accounts with a platform. Someone like Tony responds to someone with single or double digit followers and now everyone who hangs on Tony's account looking for people to bully can now drill into his response for new targets and potentially new members of their campaign.

I know it seems fantastical, but like Necromancers they raise soldiers from the bodies of those they attack.

@TonyStark @JamesBazan

@mentallyalex @TonyStark @JamesBazan

Good point. Replying to a disinfo account gives that account a second chance to target your own followers. That problem is larger for a big account like Tony's.

The relative effectiveness of that follower-targeting tactic is smaller in the Fediverse than it was on Twitter, because people follow hashtags here. Disinfo trolls can target a hashtag's followers just as easily as they can attack a person's followers.

@barney
I agree in part, but I would think that hashtags make weaker targets.

If someone is following a hashtag I have to either target the person using the hashtag directly, or hope for someone to also use the hashtag that I can 'twist' for my purposes, right?

By attaching to Tony, I can reply to him, heat him up with something minor. I don't want him to reject me I just want *his* followers to engage. Similar to the old joke about the secret to finding out something on Stack Overflow is to make two accounts.

1 - Ask the question.
2 - Answer yourself wrong.
3 - collect the 40,000 right answers from people wanting to correct you.

You can use that on someone like Tony as well. "trip" or make a subtle misstep and see who shares his responses and who responds to me. Those people are likely targets for "high impressions".

With disinformation, subtle is going to play a lot harder than direct. Not everyone has the mentality to loudly disagree so they'll just consume without question.

@TonyStark @JamesBazan

@mentallyalex @TonyStark @JamesBazan

Excellent point. One that I shall ponder more deeply offline.

Follower-triggering often allows trolls to change the subject of a thread and effectively instill false info. E.g.:

Me: Actually, Biden can't expand SCOTUS. That requires an act of Congress, and the Dems don't have enough votes.

Troll: Whatabout how the Dems could have codified Roe, but they refused to, because they are secretly anti-abortion? [this is false]

My follower: You suck, troll.

@mentallyalex @TonyStark @JamesBazan

That kind of "follower-targeting whatabouting" allows trolls to attack my followers with disinformation. The absence of a directed reply tends to imply that the disinfo is true. My follower is unwittingly helping the troll attack themself and all my other followers too.

@mentallyalex @TonyStark @JamesBazan

Sometimes I'll jump back into such a thread, even if I previously deemed it unworthy of further engagement, with something like this: "That's false, but the topic of this conversation is expanding SCOTUS. Biden does not have the ability to do that. You said he does have that power, but that is false. Expanding SCOTUS requires an act of Congress."

@barney @mentallyalex @TonyStark @JamesBazan
The pushing of false narratives about what it is possible for Biden or Congress to do contributes a lot to the voter apathy which is what makes progress so much more difficult.

@GreenFire @barney @mentallyalex @TonyStark @JamesBazan it’s the reason. Only some of the pushers are ignorant. The ones starting those are devious.