Russia, The West, And The Info War

Fears of war breaking out between Russia and Ukraine have dominated headlines in the international press. Information warfare is an undeniable reality of modern conflicts, and its impact is often strategic in demoralizing the adversary’s forces and populace.

In many of its doctrinal and strategic publications, Russia acknowledges that the information domain is an active battleground, regardless of the contending sides being in a state of war or peace. Despite spirited official denials, it is fair to say that Russia gives as good as it gets in the information domain.

In the latest round of public jousting around hybrid and information warfare, both sides have led with accusations and official public statements.

The Russian Ministry of Defense has alleged that American mercenaries are present and looking to orchestrate a chemical attack in the Donbas region of Ukraine. Meanwhile the US State Department has released a fact sheet detailing the alleged Russian “destabilization campaign in Ukraine.” British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has made a statement accusing Russia of planning “to install pro-Russian leadership in Ukraine.”

Russia’s approach to building up forces on Ukraine’s border is best characterized as Clausewitzian, meaning it’s aimed toward achieving political goals through other means.

Russian energy industry makes new social media connection

Russia’s energy industry currently brings in a major chunk of state revenue and is tied to common prosperity and employment in the Russian economy. Although a willingness eventually to phase out hydrocarbons now exists, the idea is to switch to exporting greener sources of energy such as hydrogen instead of just watching business decline.

Read the full article on Asia Times

Facebook Says It Inadvertently Restricted A Hashtag. Now It Needs To Tell Us Exactly How And Why

This article originally appeared on Medianama. An excerpt is reproduced here:

An explanation

The presence of a political context surrounding these cases also raises the question of how Facebook is responding to the possible weaponisation of its community reporting. We know from Facebook’s August 2020 CIB report that it took against a network engaged in mass reporting. What principles does it use to define thresholds for action? How is such coordinated activity that falls below its self-defined threshold of Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour handled? Knowledge about the specifics of thresholds become essential when they make the difference between publicly disclosed and internal actions, as the Sophie Zhang – Guardian series demonstrated in the Indian context.Facebook — this applies to other networks too, but Facebook is by far the largest in India — needs to put forward more meaningful explanations in such cases. Ones that amount to more than ‘Oops!’ or ‘Look! We fixed it!’. There are, after all, no secret blocking rules stopping it from explaining its own mistakes. These explanations don’t have to be immediate. Issues can be complex, requiring detailed analysis. Set a definite timeline, and deliver. No doubt, this already happens for internal purposes. And then, actually show progress. Reduce the trust deficit, don’t feed it.This does raise concerns of being drawn into distracted by narrow content-specific conversations or being distracted by ‘transparency theater’, thereby missing the forest for the trees. These are legitimate risks and need to be navigated carefully. The micro-level focus can be about specific types of content or actions on a particular platform. At the macro-level, it is about impact on public discourse and society. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive and what we learn from one level should inform the others, in pursuit of greater accountability. To read more visit: Facebook says it inadvertently restricted a hashtag. Now it needs to tell us exactly how and why | MediaNama

Why we need to rethink how we disagree online

This article originally appeared in the Deccan Herald. An excerpt is reproduced here.Intentions as well as consequences are important in the information ecosystem. In July, an anonymous Twitter handle that purportedly offers ‘unpopular unapologetic truths’ distastefully advised its male followers to "only marry virgins". A quick Twitter search suggests that this wasn't the first time this account had engaged in such rhetoric, it wasn't the last either – but on this particular occasion it broke out from its regular set of followers to garner wider attention.Understandably, there was outrage. Some of the account's past content was called out, regular followers of the account were called out, both the tweets in question and the account were reported in unison by multiple users and more. However, two days later the account itself declared victory stating that interest in its content had increased and 'weak' followers had been cleared out.Earlier in the year, efforts by the campaign 'Stop Funding Hate' led to a movie streaming service, a business school and an ad-network excluding a far-right Indian website from their ad programs. However, the website itself claimed an increase in voluntary contributions 'upto 700 per cent' and also stated that there was no drop in advertising revenues.And in an ongoing instance, in late August, a news anchor tweeted out a ‘teaser’ video of an upcoming series that claimed it would unearth a conspiracy enabling minorities to occupy a disproportionate number of civil services posts in the country. An indicative analysis, using the tool Hoaxy, seemed to show that a lot of the initial engagement came from tweets that were meant to call out the nature of the content via quote tweets.Often, many of these accounts had a large number of followers themselves.Around the same time, an analysis by Kate Starbird, an eminent crisis informatics researcher, showed a misleading tweet by Donald Trump spreading “much farther” through quote tweets than through retweets. She also pointed out that a lot of the early quote tweets were critical in nature and calling on the platform to take action.While the matter of this particular series itself is sub judice, let’s focus on the days just after the tweet in question. In four days, the anchor’s follower count had grown nearly five per cent. In the ensuing period there have also been multiple hashtag campaigns professing their support both for the anchor and channel.What is common in each of these situations is that efforts to call out problematic content may have inadvertently benefitted the content creators by galvanising their supporters (in-group), propagating the content on digital platforms (algorithmic reward) and perhaps even recruiting new supporters who were inclined to agree with the content but are only choosing to participate as a result of the amplification and/or perceived attacks against their points-of-view or beliefs (disagreement with the out-group).

---

Read more.