Combating Disinformation: Shifting from Exposure to Effective Response Strategies
The digital age has brought about unprecedented challenges, one of the most pressing being the rampant spread of disinformation and Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) campaigns. While significant efforts have been dedicated to exposing and raising awareness about these threats, the focus is now shifting toward developing more effective response strategies. The existing approach, often visualized as a closed circuit from incident to countermeasure, falls short in addressing the persistent and evolving nature of disinformation campaigns. Even after debunking, deplatforming, or imposing sanctions, disinformation continues to circulate, and threat actors adapt their tactics to evade countermeasures. Therefore, understanding these campaigns as dynamic, interconnected systems is crucial to formulating robust and effective responses.
Beyond Individual Responses: Analyzing the Ripple Effect
To move beyond the limitations of the current approach, it’s imperative to examine the broader narrative of disinformation campaigns rather than focusing solely on individual responses. The key question to ask is, "What happens next?" EU DisinfoLab, in its research and analysis, has adopted this perspective to develop a more holistic approach to combating disinformation. Their work, based on the Doppelganger campaign case study, aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of different responses and develop a framework for future action. Moving beyond merely identifying and addressing individual instances of disinformation, they analyze the broader impact of responses and their ripple effects on the disinformation ecosystem. This includes evaluating how responses affect threat actors’ capabilities, trigger new actions from both defenders and attackers, and contribute to overall deterrence.
A Three-Step Vision for Enhanced Response Strategies
EU DisinfoLab proposes a three-step vision to improve the effectiveness of responses to disinformation campaigns. The first step involves meticulous mapping and analysis of implemented measures, building upon the DISARM Blue Framework but also expanding it to address identified gaps. This includes categorizing responses as exposure-related, community engagement-related, distribution-related, infrastructure-related, and sanction/legal responses. Each response is then evaluated for its cost-effectiveness and potential impact on five key factors: increased situational awareness, impact on threat actors’ capabilities, capacity to trigger new responses, increased opportunities for attribution, and deterrence.
The second step centers on developing a response-impact framework that assigns unique identifiers to each impact factor, facilitating community-wide identification and tracking. This framework allows for visualization of the impact of different responses, enabling a more comprehensive evaluation of their effectiveness based on the five key indicators identified in the first step. By providing a structured way to analyze and encode the impact of responses, the framework goes beyond the isolated analysis of individual actions and contributes to a better understanding of the interconnectedness of responses and their consequences.
The third step leverages the response-impact framework to design tailored responses based on the desired outcome. This framework allows stakeholders to select the most appropriate countermeasures by filtering responses based on their expected impact. For instance, if the primary goal is to enhance cooperation among stakeholders, the framework guides the selection of responses that prioritize exposure and community engagement. Conversely, if the objective is to weaken the threat actors’ resources, targeting their infrastructure or pursuing legal actions might be prioritized. The framework provides a flexible and adaptable tool for evidence-based decision-making, empowering stakeholders to choose the most effective approach based on their specific goals and context.
Conclusion: A Dynamic and Scalable Approach
This three-step approach represents a significant advancement in the fight against FIMI campaigns. It provides a comprehensive method for codifying and visualizing incident responses and their impact, facilitating a deeper understanding of the complex interplay of actions and reactions within the disinformation ecosystem. The proposal enhances existing frameworks like DISARM by adding additional observables for responses, making it adaptable to both current and emerging challenges. By moving beyond a static, linear model of campaign and response, it embraces the dynamic, interconnected, and evolving nature of the disinformation landscape.
The methodology is not limited to a single case study but is designed to be scalable and adaptable. It can incorporate ongoing countermeasures, new potential measures, and insights from future case studies. This continuous refinement ensures its relevance and effectiveness in addressing the ever-shifting tactics of disinformation actors. The integration of external IDs also opens up possibilities for innovative visualization on open-source platforms, further enhancing collaboration and information sharing within the counter-disinformation community. This dynamic approach fosters a more effective and resilient response to the ongoing challenge of disinformation.
Annex: Comprehensive List of Responses
The detailed annex provided by EU DisinfoLab expands upon the DISARM Blue Framework and categorizes responses into five key areas: exposure-related, community engagement-related, distribution-related, infrastructure-related, and sanctions/legal responses. This comprehensive list provides a valuable resource for practitioners and researchers working to counter disinformation. It not only outlines established responses but also includes those suggested by EU DisinfoLab, highlighting the continuous evolution and adaptation required in this field. This detailed breakdown of potential responses further underscores the importance of a comprehensive and flexible approach to tackling the complex problem of disinformation.
