who monitor and inform citizens about lies and false election information will unilaterally disarm , in the face of the constant bullying and harassment ,” tweeted David Becker — who runs the Center for Election Innovation and Research and whose defense of election officials has made him a target of Trump loyalists — commenting after November 2023 Election Day .
What is less discussed in these warnings is what can be done to loosen online propaganda ’ s grip . That question , which involves the interplay of digitally delivered information and how we think and act , is where insights from scholarly research are clarifying and useful .
Debunking disinformation is not the same as changing minds , many researchers at the recent Trust and Safety conference explained . This understanding has emerged as online threats have evolved since the 2016 presidential election . That year , when Russian operatives created fake personas and pages on Facebook and elsewhere to discourage key Democratic blocs from voting , the scope of problem and solution mostly involved cybersecurity efforts , Starbird recalled in her keynote address during the conference .
At that time , the remedy was finding technical ways to quickly spot and shut down the forged accounts and fake pages . By 2020 election , the problem and its dynamics had shifted . The false narratives were coming from domestic sources . The president and his allies were people using authentic social media accounts . Trump set the tone . Influencers — rightwing personalities , pundits , and media outlets — followed his cues . Ordinary Americans not only believed their erroneous or false claims , and helped to spread them , but some Trump
cultists went further and spun stolen election clichés into vast conspiracies and fabricated false evidence .
Propaganda scholars now see disinformation as a participatory phenomenon . There is more going on than simply saying that flawed or fake content is intentionally created , intentionally spread , and intentionally reacted to , Starbird and others explained . To start , disinformation is not always entirely false . It often is a story built around a grain of truth or a plausible scenario , she said , but “ layered with exaggerations and distortions to create a false sense of reality .”
Moreover , disinformation “ rarely functions ” as a single piece of content . It is part of a series of interactions or an ongoing campaign — such as Trump ’ s repeated claim that elections are rigged . Crucially , while propaganda and disinformation are often talked about as being deceptive , Starbird said that “ when you actually look at disinformation campaigns online , most of the content that spreads doesn ’ t come from people — those that are part of it [ the bogus campaign ], it comes from unwitting actors or sincere believers in the content .”
These layered dynamics blur the lines between what is informational and what is psychological . The factors at play include how first impressions , memory , and beliefs can clash with the ground truth — or eclipse it . Starbird cited one example she has studied . In 2020 in Arizona ’ s Maricopa County , home to Phoenix , Trump supporters had been hearing for months that the November election would be stolen . When they saw that some pens given to voters bled through their paper ballot , that triggered fears and the so-called “ Sharpiegate ”
The Trial Lawyer x 67