We say "information war", I'd argue, because it's about information theory at its core, and it's not about raw data nor the manufacture of facts.
It's unbelievably contentious to provide a complete account of how people read, but at least for disinfo, you could think of it like this:
A fact is an objectively existent thing/event.
A reading is what we make out of that.
The narrative is the story we tell around it.
People just, like, making stuff up is pretty easy to handle, we know what to call that.
So, like, George Santos.
As in, literally anything George Santos says about himself.
That's pretty clearly intentionally making stuff up, or disinformation.
When we deal with a true fact, though, and assign a misleading reading, or use it to advance or make more real ("reify") a false or hateful narrative, then it stops being so cut-and-dry.
This sounds hand-wavey without examples (a lot of disinfo theory does, actually).
This is a really good example I just came across today courtesy of fellow... uh... #nafo#fella (#nafellow?)
That video isn't forged or a deepfake. No one is saying that.
And if you want to enact a demand-side solution, you aren't doing it with an app, or for that matter anything else that's all "stagey" and cringe and artificial like that.
It requires something that looks a lot like NAFO actually.
if you're wondering what Kamala Harris' foreign policy is going to be like, the answer I'm getting from reading is
"basically more of the same but more realistically hawkish, and less blindly supportive of Israel"
Take a look yourself, I'll link some articles
1/7
Generally speaking, if you like Biden's foreign policy but you wish he'd be more assertive towards Russia... you're going to like what you see.
1. The Bulwark's interview is relatively light on substance, mostly reassuring its readers on Israel thebulwark.com/p/what-would-a…
2. Bazail-Eimil, et al., at Politico, go more in-depth, looking at Harris' foreign policy stances, advisors and experience, but end up with pretty much the same answers as The Bulwark (via internet archive) archive.is/wdwag
Usually when people explain how Republicans got all pro-Russia, they start with two events at opposite ends of history, and weave history in-between; the quality of the result is based on which points they pick and the thread they weave.
The two events that people pick are usually Reagan and Trump, crediting Reagan with beating the U.S.S.R. and faulting Trump for his deference to Putin.
As Gais (more deftly) does, the WCF is one thread you can weave between; I think it's certainly one of the easier to understand
When I ask "why are Republicans all pro-Russia" I tend to start with an out-of-expectation event or investigation, and try to draw out pattern & theme similarities.
So one set of the answers I get has to do with a global far-right power grab financed by billionaires.
If you look back at Harris' exchanges with Biden on busing in their '19 debate, I think you can almost discern a kind of historical 'rhyme' with what's happening today in terms of the transition from Biden to Harris at the top of the ticket.
1/16
It comes down to implicit bias - biases that you can't really control, that are "baked into" who you are as a person.
The "problem" - such as it is - is that we fit people into schemas, patterns of how we expect people to turn out, without even trying. It's natural.
An easy example is me. People tend to expect that I'm just another accented-English tech dork. There are just so many quiet Asian tech dorks speaking accented English. It is statistically reasonable for some people, even if it is offensive.
The beauty of talking about Project 2025 is also, like... they're stuck with it.
Look at the through-line connecting the Supreme Court decision on Chevron to influence attempts to destroy the administrative state the way Project 2025 does