US Agency for International Development (USAID) Targeted "Gaming Sites" as Potential Disinformation Sources Before Dismantling
The recent dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) by the Department of Government Efficiency has sparked intense scrutiny of the organization’s past activities. Among the discoveries unearthed from USAID’s public records is a "Disinformation Primer" that identifies "gaming sites" as potential sources of disinformation, raising questions about the agency’s understanding of online information ecosystems. This revelation comes amid a broader discussion about disinformation and its impact on societies worldwide.
The primer, co-authored by USAID staff and researchers from the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, aimed to equip USAID personnel and partners with the knowledge to identify and counter disinformation. It outlined various types of mis/disinformation, such as "False Context" and "Propaganda," and explored how these tactics are employed by both domestic and foreign actors. The document also delved into the methods of disinformation dissemination, contributing social factors, and the challenges encountered when combating it.
Significantly, the primer highlighted the importance of understanding "alternative media spaces," arguing that while discussions about disinformation often focus on state actors, problematic information frequently originates from networks of alternative sites and anonymous individuals. These spaces, encompassing platforms like Reddit, 4chan, Discord, and conspiracy-focused websites, foster a sense of community where users validate each other’s claims and interpretations, creating a self-reinforcing system of belief. The primer also mentioned "gaming sites" as part of this alt-media landscape, but without providing specific examples.
This lack of clarity raises crucial questions. Were they referring to independent gaming news outlets like Niche Gamer or Bounding Into Comics? Or were they targeting online gaming communities and forums like those found on Steam? Without further clarification, it’s impossible to determine the specific "gaming sites" that USAID considered potential sources of disinformation. This ambiguity underscores a potential disconnect between the agency’s perception of online gaming communities and their actual functions.
To counter misinformation, the primer recommended a ten-point toolkit for USAID employees and partners. This included conducting disinformation diagnostics, mapping key stakeholders, supporting media literacy initiatives, funding independent media and local journalism, backing fact-checking endeavors, staying updated on disinformation trends, supporting internet governance and digital rights, engaging with government officials, collaborating with international partners, and measuring the impact of counter-disinformation efforts.
The primer’s broad strokes regarding “gaming sites” as potential vectors of disinformation without specifying examples raises several critical questions. First, it reveals a potential lack of nuanced understanding of online communities dedicated to gaming, arguably conflating them with other, more problematic online spaces. This raises concerns about the agency’s ability to effectively address disinformation, especially in the context of evolving online environments.
Second, it begs the question of whether USAID possessed any concrete evidence linking specific gaming sites to disinformation campaigns. Without such evidence, the inclusion of "gaming sites" could be interpreted as an overly broad generalization that unfairly stigmatizes an entire category of online platforms.
Third, the absence of specific examples leaves room for speculation about the agency’s intentions. Was this a genuine attempt to address a perceived threat, or a more generalized suspicion of online communities? Without further information, it’s difficult to ascertain the motivation behind this categorization.
The revelation of USAID’s “Disinformation Primer” and its focus on “gaming sites” adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing discussion surrounding online disinformation and its impact on democratic processes. While the primer acknowledges the complexities of the digital landscape, its lack of specificity regarding “gaming sites” raises questions about the agency’s understanding of online communities. This ambiguity, coupled with the recent dismantling of USAID, warrants further investigation into the organization’s past activities and their implications for future efforts to combat disinformation. As online spaces continue to evolve, it becomes increasingly crucial for institutions tasked with addressing disinformation to possess a nuanced and accurate understanding of the digital landscape.