The origins of disinformation, according to Andrew Maratz

[Biduido]

Hey everyone,

It’s me again. As some of you already know, I’m a bit of a news junkie. I spend a lot of time reading and learning about the media landscape, especially when it comes to fake news and disinformation. I think it’s one of the most pressing issues we face if we want the media to remain a cornerstone of a sane society and a functioning political system.

Recently, I came across the work of Andrew Maratz, a journalist from The New Yorker. One day, he decided to dive deep into the world of far-right disinformation in the U.S., meeting the people and organizations behind it. The picture he paints is pretty disturbing. You can google him, or just watch his TED talk here: https://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_marantz_inside_the_bizarre_world_of_internet_trolls_and_propagandists?subtitle=en

In short, he explains how the current era of disinformation has roots in the pre-digital age. Modern political “dog-whistle” tactics were pioneered by Reagan and the first Bush, and they drew on communication frameworks that go all the way back to Lindbergh and his Nazi sympathizers in the 1930s. These methods tapped into underlying, often unnoticed, sentiments in the American electorate—fear of immigration, white supremacy, and more.

I have to admit, this isn’t something exclusive to the U.S. It’s been part of politics in Western democracies for a long time. I’m from Spain, and I can recall reading the occasional reference in the press to an underground set of extreme opinions that were too out there to be covered by the mainstream media—on both sides of the political spectrum.

That all changed with social media. Social media is built for engagement and sales (i.e., ads), making it the perfect environment to weaponize these fringe narratives and push them into the mainstream. The architects of this shift are now well-known: Bannon, Breitbart News, and so on. Nothing new there.

The sad part is that mainstream media followed suit, turning the entire media ecosystem into a mess where fact-checking alone isn’t enough to clean up public discourse. A recent example is the false claim about Haitian people eating pets in the U.S. Maratz explains this brilliantly in an article for The Guardian:

“One of the most depressing things about 2016 was the apparent inability of American journalism to deal with this pollution of the public sphere. In part, this was because they were crippled by their professional standards. It’s not always possible to be even-handed and honest. ‘The plain fact,’ writes Marantz at one point, ‘was that the alt-right was a racist movement full of creeps and liars. If a newspaper’s house style didn’t allow its reporters to say so, then the house style was preventing its reporters from telling the truth.’ Trump’s mastery of Twitter led the news agenda every day, faithfully followed by mainstream media, like beagles following a live trail. And his use of the ‘fake news’ metaphor was masterly: a reminder of why, as Marantz points out, Lügenpresse—‘lying press’—was also a favorite epithet of Joseph Goebbels.”

Crystal clear, in my opinion. Now, we have a public discourse hijacked by shady people with shady intentions—creeps and liars—who are somehow shaping public dialogue, with the media unwittingly (or not) helping them.

So, could this happen with Olas? My concern is that a decentralized platform like Olas, as promising as it sounds, could easily fall prey to coordinated attacks by bad-faith actors. If that happens, the entire purpose of the platform could be undermined.

So, the question for me is simple: how do we prevent that? I think there are two possible solutions, both of which can work together:

1. Transparency in funding: Many of these disinformation sites are funded through shady financial schemes that hide the political agendas behind them. As the saying goes, follow the money to find the truth. This applies to media as well. Clearly identifying who funds what could shine some light on the darker corners of the internet.
2. Accountability for media: This mostly applies to social media platforms. As things stand, none of these platforms are truly accountable in the U.S. (where they are based) for the content posted there. Sure, they’ll remove some posts for legal reasons, but they don’t face the same accountability as newspapers or TV channels. If media platforms were held responsible for the content they publish, they’d likely think twice before posting anything that’s false, half-baked, or pure disinformation.

That’s my two cents for now. I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Have a great day!

Cheers,

[Nator]

Hey!

I always enjoy reading your posts!

I completely agree that transparency in funding and greater accountability for media platforms are key to maintaining a healthy public discourse.

Example: 2020 U.S. Election Interference

During the 2020 elections, foreign actors leveraged social media to spread misleading information and deepen political divisions. Transparent funding could help identify and prevent such campaigns, while holding platforms accountable would ensure they take proactive steps to mitigate the spread of fake news.

I know it can be tiresome to always talk about the US, but they are one of the most affected.

[thethinker]

@Biduido

Hey everyone,

It’s me again. As some of you already know, I’m a bit of a news junkie. I spend a lot of time reading and learning about the media landscape, especially when it comes to fake news and disinformation. I think it’s one of the most pressing issues we face if we want the media to remain a cornerstone of a sane society and a functioning political system.

Recently, I came across the work of Andrew Maratz, a journalist from The New Yorker. One day, he decided to dive deep into the world of far-right disinformation in the U.S., meeting the people and organizations behind it. The picture he paints is pretty disturbing. You can google him, or just watch his TED talk here: Andrew Marantz: Inside the bizarre world of internet trolls and propagandists | TED Talk

In short, he explains how the current era of disinformation has roots in the pre-digital age. Modern political “dog-whistle” tactics were pioneered by Reagan and the first Bush, and they drew on communication frameworks that go all the way back to Lindbergh and his Nazi sympathizers in the 1930s. These methods tapped into underlying, often unnoticed, sentiments in the American electorate—fear of immigration, white supremacy, and more.

I have to admit, this isn’t something exclusive to the U.S. It’s been part of politics in Western democracies for a long time. I’m from Spain, and I can recall reading the occasional reference in the press to an underground set of extreme opinions that were too out there to be covered by the mainstream media—on both sides of the political spectrum.

That all changed with social media. Social media is built for engagement and sales (i.e., ads), making it the perfect environment to weaponize these fringe narratives and push them into the mainstream. The architects of this shift are now well-known: Bannon, Breitbart News, and so on. Nothing new there.

The sad part is that mainstream media followed suit, turning the entire media ecosystem into a mess where fact-checking alone isn’t enough to clean up public discourse. A recent example is the false claim about Haitian people eating pets in the U.S. Maratz explains this brilliantly in an article for The Guardian:

“One of the most depressing things about 2016 was the apparent inability of American journalism to deal with this pollution of the public sphere. In part, this was because they were crippled by their professional standards. It’s not always possible to be even-handed and honest. ‘The plain fact,’ writes Marantz at one point, ‘was that the alt-right was a racist movement full of creeps and liars. If a newspaper’s house style didn’t allow its reporters to say so, then the house style was preventing its reporters from telling the truth.’ Trump’s mastery of Twitter led the news agenda every day, faithfully followed by mainstream media, like beagles following a live trail. And his use of the ‘fake news’ metaphor was masterly: a reminder of why, as Marantz points out, Lügenpresse—‘lying press’—was also a favorite epithet of Joseph Goebbels.”

Crystal clear, in my opinion. Now, we have a public discourse hijacked by shady people with shady intentions—creeps and liars—who are somehow shaping public dialogue, with the media unwittingly (or not) helping them.

So, could this happen with Olas? My concern is that a decentralized platform like Olas, as promising as it sounds, could easily fall prey to coordinated attacks by bad-faith actors. If that happens, the entire purpose of the platform could be undermined.

So, the question for me is simple: how do we prevent that? I think there are two possible solutions, both of which can work together:

1. Transparency in funding: Many of these disinformation sites are funded through shady financial schemes that hide the political agendas behind them. As the saying goes, follow the money to find the truth. This applies to media as well. Clearly identifying who funds what could shine some light on the darker corners of the internet.
2. Accountability for media: This mostly applies to social media platforms. As things stand, none of these platforms are truly accountable in the U.S. (where they are based) for the content posted there. Sure, they’ll remove some posts for legal reasons, but they don’t face the same accountability as newspapers or TV channels. If media platforms were held responsible for the content they publish, they’d likely think twice before posting anything that’s false, half-baked, or pure disinformation.

That’s my two cents for now. I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Have a great day!

Cheers,

It’s a challenging issue, and you’ve highlighted a critical point. We need journalists to provide accurate information and hold power to account, but they’re increasingly caught between commercial pressures and the threat of disinformation. The rise of decentralized platforms could be promising, but without strong mechanisms for transparency and accountability, they’re just as vulnerable to manipulation as traditional media. It’s clear we need new ways to support and protect independent journalism, ensuring they have the resources and freedom to report the truth without compromise.

Thoughts?

[0xOkan]

Thank you for sharing this insightful overview. Andrew Marantz’s work sheds light on the alarming evolution of disinformation, and it’s crucial to recognize its historical roots and modern implications. The shift to social media has indeed amplified fringe narratives, often blurring the lines between credible journalism and sensationalism.

Your concerns about Olas are valid. A decentralized platform must implement robust measures to mitigate the influence of bad-faith actors. Transparency in funding and accountability for content are essential steps. By shining a light on who finances information and holding platforms responsible for their content, we can create a healthier media landscape.

It’s a complex challenge, but discussing these solutions is a step in the right direction. I look forward to further conversations on how we can protect the integrity of public discourse.

[thethinker]

To make this work, you need a few crucial things to work seamlessly, but yeah, it’s not easy. Discussing and addressing these things is a great start.