Disinformation Isnt Just a National Problem; Its Local, Too – Governing

(TNS) If you need another example of how disinformation can actually hurt people and turn an emergency into a crisis, go back to the wildfires that consumed portions of California, Oregon and Washington last September.

The fires, historic in scale, burned some 5 million acres and thousands of homes and structures. Drought-like conditions throughout the Northwest allowed them to rage, and the resulting smoke cast a pall over the entire region. Officials and emergency responders had enough on their hands without having to convince people the threat was real.

But in Oregon, the situation was made worse by a stream of disinformation rumors, really on social media. As the fires spread, so did false claims that they had been deliberately set by antifa, a loosely organized group of far-left activists that clashes with right-wing organizations and has been labeled by conservatives as the source of all violence and disruption.

Soon, police departments and 9-1-1 dispatchers were being bombarded by calls from Oregon homeowners who had heard that roving gangs of antifa members were setting fires. Some neighborhoods set up armed checkpoints, as they mobilized to guard their homes.

The phone calls, rumors and checkpoints all interfered with fire, police and rescue personnel trying to compile accurate information about the numerous fires and effectively dispatch resources to fight them, save lives and property, and evacuate as many residents as possible.

It took two to three days of media saturation by state and local officials to finally quell the antifa conspiracy. That is the power of social media to propel a set of lies.

Last month, Glenn S. Gerstell, a former general counsel for the National Security Agency, cited the Oregon saga in testimony before the House Armed Services subcommittee on cybersecurity, innovative technologies and information systems during a hearing on disinformation and what to do about it.

It reached a point because of what Russia was doing that civilians actually set up roadblocks in Oregon in an effort to stop these perceived but erroneous protesters who, of course, werent there, Gerstell continued. It actually hurt people who were trying to flee the fire so much so that the Douglas County sheriff and the FBI pleaded with the public to stop circulating these falsehoods.

Disinformation campaigns are sophisticated, but amazingly cheap. And all of the Pentagons bombs and bullets, fighter jets, Navy destroyers and nuclear weapons cant do much about them.

So, what would work?

For a long time, experts have talked about a whole of government approach to the problem a phrase reporters tend to dismiss when we hear it in Washington, which is often. But this time, they might be right. Gerstell and his fellow witnesses had numerous suggestions for lawmakers.

First, regulate social media by changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, or somehow convince them to regulate themselves with an aim, as Gerstell testified, to limit the virality of falsehoods, to check them before they get spread too widely.

Second, establish a bipartisan, agreed-upon campaign of civic education and digital literacy to teach people young and old the differences between falsehood and truth and how to recognize the differences online. Nina Jankowicz, the disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center, suggested such a campaign be based in our public library system, one of the most trusted institutions in America.

Next, the Pentagon must elevate the fight against disinformation, with high-level civilians and officers making it a key part of their strategy portfolios. After all, undermining confidence in our democracy and institutions is a strategy, not just tactics, used by our enemies to weaken, divide and conquer.

The Pentagon should also examine and strengthen its psychological operations and perhaps marry them to its cybersecurity teams and reconsider how spies, the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command carry out their intelligence missions to protect the United States without interfering in free and unfettered domestic debate.

Finally and this is the hardest Rubicon to cross there must be a consideration of the extent to which the U.S. should fight fire with fire: Do we engage in falsehoods abroad to weaken our enemies, as they do to us? Agencies like the CIA have done so in the past, but most of the witnesses before Armed Services were reluctant to offer support for such activities.

One of them, Herbert Lin, the senior research scholar at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, put it this way: Do we want to adopt the tactics of the Russians in this? Im very uncomfortable about that as an American citizen.

On the other hand, Lin continued, its pretty clear that speaking the truth, just the truth, doesnt work very well.

And we, the Americans, believe in speaking the truth that the truth will eventually win, he said. Maybe eventually. But theres good evidence that it doesnt always win in the short term. And how far are we willing to go down that path? Thats a very tough policy question.

But thats why we elect members of Congress and presidents. To answer the tough questions. With disinformation spreading like wildfire, its time they do.

(c)2021 CQ Roll Call. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Here is the original post:

Disinformation Isnt Just a National Problem; Its Local, Too - Governing