“Disinformation” is always a smokescreen. All nominal (keyword) democratic processes are filled with disinformation: standard advertisement. Those who want peace, lay down your own arms as well (no takers).
Like almost 2 years of election circus in the US federal election.
> I think your point (that people ought to be smart and strong enough to withstand all and any malign influence(?))
That’s absurd. I don’t conceptualize “people” as some not-me group.
Well I’m not Indian^W Pakistani but the principle is universal.
> Here, disinformation refers to false, inaccurate or misleading information designed, presented and promoted intentionally to cause public harm or make a profit.
Is campaigning on lies a form of profit? You might win. These hypocrites really dare to present this as novel? Lying in politics?
What’s really the practical difference between this ostensibly oh-so clearly demarcated “disinformation” and less outright other-information? The difference is having a discourse fog which makes it practically impossible to conclude anything without sinking into a quagmire of rhetoric.
Here’s a “Beijing” statement, hypothetical:
> We the people of China
Ah! the eggheads exclaim. Propaganda! Clear disinformation since China is an authoritarian state (sorry, regime)—it can’t be a state “of the people”.
Here’s a “Washington” statement:
> The President does not suffer symptoms of senility
What is this? This is twenty different articles and op-eds back and forth on this topic:
- Well he went to the doctor 15 years ago and he said he was fine
- My good friend Joe Biden would never become demented—he would rather [redacted]
- I respect the President but it’s time for some young blood in leadership
- As a close aide to the President, blah blah
- He might not seem as sharp as 12 years ago but [diversion tactic]
Isn’t it amazing—you cannot peddle outright disinformation if you are sufficiently powerful, almost by definition; there is always some clown who will bat for you. And the result? A discourse fog. No one is a liar. No one is peddling “disinformation for profit.”
In conclusion: what we do are varying levels of information. But what these foreign forces do (because they are not here to defend themselves, and anyone who defends them (or just has a nuanced point of view) is just <regime>-puppet anyway) is disinformation because they clearly are X while they claim to be Y.
It seems natural that those who have power get to proclaim what is
'true' and what is 'false'. Foucault, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Chomsky,
practically everyone who spared it a thought would agree with you.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding around the word "authority"
(which we confuse with power in "western" language)
Firstly, what power says is immaterial with regard to actual truth or
falsehood. That's why people wear T-shirts that say "Science is a
bitch huh?". Certainly, millions may die because a man with a big gun,
a big ego and a small penis swears that black is white, but ain't it
always been so? Tomorrow you get to hold the gun, and suddenly
you're "right".
But most importantly, "disinformation" has nothing to do with truth or
falsehood. It's about intent. The word "intention" is right there.
Otherwise what you have is "misinformation".
What pleases me about the linked definition is that profit and harm
are deemed unacceptable intents. That scoops up every lying
advertiser, every manipulative Big-Tech company, and every lying
domestic politician into the "disinformation" net too, and for me that
makes the world a better place. YMMV.
Like almost 2 years of election circus in the US federal election.
> I think your point (that people ought to be smart and strong enough to withstand all and any malign influence(?))
That’s absurd. I don’t conceptualize “people” as some not-me group.
Well I’m not Indian^W Pakistani but the principle is universal.