Thoughtful piece from @SusanBenesch on how to look beyond the content of individual posts to assess both impact and appropriate remedy -- a useful way to apply behavioral analysis of threat actors to more diffuse networks.
https://twitter.com/davidakaye/status/1399154580072587264
Defenders are grappling with how to adapt protocols designed for clearly delineated “bad guys” (ISIS, “The Russians”) who hide their identity online to tackle diffuse, blurred threats where witting deceivers mobilize large, authentic communities w/out hiding their identity.
@SusanBenesch’s proposal is a good way to think about this, and we need more approaches like this. But it’s important to be careful here as well. Protocols distinguish between deceptive “superspreaders” and unwitting “superjoiners” for a reason.
Sophisticated threat actors exploit this boundary — pulling content from & pushing content to unconnected users, trying to trick gov’ts and platforms into over-enforcement & drawing calls of censorship.
It makes sense to assess the network effects of an actor’s repeated posting, but we should also be careful not to paint instigators & responders with the same brush. Sharing accurate information is an important tool here, and enforcement/removal may not always be the right move.
We also have to recognize that these “operations” occur across multiple platforms and multiple media. We need linked strategies in broadcast, print, radio, and online, and much more discussion about how to strike the right balance here.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
