Thread by @davetroy

Investigating networked disinformation and influence campaigns is hard. SIGINT is often scarce, and encrypted. But people are sloppy; HUMINT is vital, and developing it requires an iterative approach. Each cycle of reporting exposes more players, which attracts more sources.

Campaigns like QAnon will ultimately collapse through iterative reporting, as human sources are amassed and facts are laid bare. This was an evolutionary and organic effort with many players. People talk. The next few iterations will result in more and more human sources.

To accelerate the collapse of this and other networked scams, we should increase our speed of iteration with the specific goal of exposing various network participants, and developing human sources around them.

Some learnings: 1) exposure of facts leads to development of more human sources, 2) don’t try to report too much at once, 3) distrust dogmatic narratives, 4) family members often know the real story, 5) all cultish operations have defectors; cultivate them.

An important question to consider: could January 6th have been prevented? If so, how? I believe if we had begun fast, iterative reporting on the network of bad actors by September, we likely could have avoid it.

There just weren’t that many key network nodes to rupture; had we done so we could likely have disrupted the plot. Going forward I think we need to use threat analysis, network mathematics, and human source development as part of the editorial process.

Fighting radicalization is in part about disrupting things “before the boom.” We need better practices for quickly identifying threats, iterating in public to develop human sources, and increasing scrutiny on bad actors — before catastrophes occur.

If 9/11 was about failure to “connect the dots” and “failure of imagination,” 1/6 was a failure to get ahead of a network of bad actors who had been identified but whom we did not sufficiently expose or outflank. We all expected a “boom,” but we didn’t know when.

And media outlets prioritized stories reacting to Trump or other lower hanging fruit. Understandable, but outlets still have not considered their ethical responsibility to get ahead of the “boom” and how to maximize their chance of doing that.

Going forward I think media outlets should prioritize disruption of radicalization patterns as part of their ethical obligation, and make editorial decisions accordingly. Networked, encrypted culture will only accelerate and worsen these phenomena...

So media outlets should ask whether any given story or project accelerates or decelerates the occurrence of a “boom.” Projects that amplify extremism without developing human sources? Accelerative. Those that expose new nodes and draw in new human sources? Likely decelerative.

As @tomwaits observed (and @AoDespair later relayed, in fugue form) — we’ve got to keep the devil way down in the hole.

We can develop a framework for identifying threats as they emerge and minimize the chance we are reporting on a “boom” after the fact. Let’s get started!