Read on Twitter
This piece does not recognize how difficult it has been to even get the public to recognize misinformation when they see it. Further, we always put identity and culture at the heart of our research about political manipulation. This dismissal of the field feels personal. https://twitter.com/nkulw/status/1322561846575091712
Claims like this are unfair and misrepresent research: “But it is a lot easier to talk about people being duped into voting for Trump by Russian Facebook posts, for instance, than about us being different types of people with potentially different values and ends for polities.”
If we are to even talk about Russia, it is significant that they posed as US social movements on social media to wedge certain issues. When we study misinformation, we study communication infrastructure.
Misinformation-at-scale is different from past research on propaganda.
Misinformation-at-scale is different from past research on propaganda.
If we look at the research from @jonathan_c_ong then it’s even clearer how misinformation shapes politics, identities, and, even, kinds of employment. Moreover, Ong shows that influence online is is an altogether different kind of political communication strategy for some elites.
The new research from @BKCHarvard on political partisanship, media agenda setting, and the misinformation about mail-in voting shows that disinformation campaigns will certainly change voting behavior and will be the basis for judicial challenges.
So, while I think these are great researchers, I don’t agree with this piece because it ignores most of the best research in this small field from those who still care deeply about facts and people’s access to accurate information.
