Huge respect to @BostonJoan, @kreissdaniel and @shannimcg, all brilliant researchers in the space of mis/disinformation and social media. I see this exchange as emblematic of a larger tension: How much attention should scholars pay to which factors in the media ecosystem. https://twitter.com/BostonJoan/status/1323267425773756418

From the standpoint of communication-based interventions, focusing on the information itself is the most feasible (and efficient) way to handle these issues. This means engaging with the platforms, dealing with behaviors of content moderators, figuring out platform incentives...

But, conspiracy theory beliefs and the role of mis and disinformation in the lives of regular people have less to do with the CONTENT of that information and everything to do with their social groups and identities (as @kreissdaniel and @shannimcg argue).

The question then is what business are we in as communication theorists? Are we in the business of EXPLANATION- in which case... identities and social groups are everything and we all need to be moving our magnifying glasses upstream to those formative constructs...

OR are we in the business of PREDICTION and CONTROL (which is what we need to be doing if we are at all interested in POLICY)? But prediction and control require us to look farther downstream at the things that are controllable.

This means: Studying the information itself. content moderation. Platform decisions about regulations and protections of speech.

But... without an understanding of those social/identity based drivers, how successful with these efforts actually be?

As @kreissdaniel and @shannimcg write: "Journalists and voters should pay more attention to the motivations, content, and drivers of mis- and disinformation."

On this, I think we can all agree.

Until we accept that the ultimate influence of mis/disinformation is contingent on our social identity-based needs and desires, we're not going to be able to design intervention campaigns that tackle the issue FAR ENOUGH UP THE RIVER to really matter long-term.

This is WAY harder than tackling the "mis/disinformation problem" at the level of content, btw. It means tackling structural issues relating to HOW the system works, where people live, what they learn in school, how they come to think about science, media, and elites....

Which is why so many of us PUNT on this giant stuff. It is EXPLAINABLE... but is it controllable?

Like... These are BIG BIG BIG things. But where is the inroad for intervention?

Same with elite rhetoric. McGregor and Kreiss write:
"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."

But, it's not just that it's easier to TALK about... what agency do we have to DO something about factors that exist THIS far upstream?

And yes, ELITE voices (aka: Trump) stoking racial division are WAY more important in signaling social/cultural identity than Facebook posts. But who will design the "Trump" intervention? Who will be the Trump-content Moderator?

Again: Explanation versus Prediction and Control.

POINT BEING. We are all fighting this same fight. We are all trying to rescue democracy from the firehose of bullshit. Some are trying to put a cork in the end of the hose. Some are trying to put a kink in the hose. Some are trying to turn off the water at the fire hydrant.

Others are trying to STOP THE FIRE FROM BEING LIT IN THE FIRST PLACE... so the Fire Hose is never "needed."

All of these approaches can and should exist TOGETHER.