While drinking coffee, I caught up with messages and some of the discussions on #disinformation and #Fimi revolved around the question whether we need precise definitions (to know the threat in detail) or if we need fuzzy terminology (to not be locked in a narrow scope). Noooooow, I got strong opinions on this (đŸ€“) but really want to hear from the community what you think!

So - trying out the voting button here, but would also love to hear some arguments from everyone, in particular from @potemkinvillage but also anyone else, in the comments 😁

Precise definitions
44.4%
Fuzzy definitions
22.2%
Don't know yet, let's discuss
27.8%
Who cares about definitions
5.6%
Poll ended at .

@potemkinvillage @Sina First thing, as translator, sense accuracy matters to me. But also, when following the discussion on my feed (not much free time today, so sporadically), all the details on research areas were enlightening (albeit complicated). If it’s good to have an “umbrella” term for the global research, I think it’s better if it’s not the same than just one research area (eg #disinformation), as that’s confusing.

Maybe a drawing would help

@potemkinvillage @Sina
This is not a joke, BTW
I would find a schema laying down how propaganda 2.0 -and researching it- articulate very helpful
And well that could also maybe help with definitions and where they -literally- fit
Not sure if she’d be interested and/or have time but I’d recommend the Queen of the discipline for such a job, @wendysiegelman
There, just a thought from an amateur researcher
@stilldelvingh @potemkinvillage @wendysiegelman I think that would be a great idea, unfortunately I'm not very handy with the pen 😅
@Sina @stilldelvingh @potemkinvillage @wendysiegelman I think fuzzier definitions are probably the way to go, as one of the big things about disinformation techniques are their adaptability and malleability. If we get too locked in to a particular definition or approach, it becomes very challenging from a regulatory perspective. Still, excessively fuzzy or broad and then it risks capturing things like satire - regulating based on intent a nightmare!
@benfarrand
Thx Ben!
I agree, IF you are looking to define X in order to regulate. To regulate something that also has a societal component, wide consensus is needed for norm adoption. The term can be fuzzy enough for it to resonate broadly & measures are embedded within a larger framework for implementation. Norm robustness is ensured when the scope of the norm is narrow. Eg. #R2P Edward Luck's “narrow but deep approach” @Sina @stilldelvingh @potemkinvillage @wendysiegelman
@stephlamy @Sina @stilldelvingh @potemkinvillage @wendysiegelman true, I guess as a legal academic, my initial thought is ‘how do we set up governance structures to deal with X’ :)

@benfarrand @Sina
Now, if your goal is to define X in order to educate, you may want to look at terms that speak to your audience.

That's what I did here in this paper on Stop The Steal (the 2020 genisis).
I coined the term "questing" to describe a pattern of behaviour.
(in French).
https://inrer.org/2020/11/desinformation-cas-decole-la-campagne-stopthesteal/

Or, here, the "grain of sand" tactic
https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2022/04/09/desinformation-russe-peu-importe-que-le-faux-soit-grossier-pourvu-qu-il-capte-l-attention_6121341_4355770.html

@stilldelvingh @potemkinvillage @wendysiegelman

DĂ©sinformation, cas d’école : la campagne StopTheSteal – INRER

@benfarrand
And here's another one: #FemSpoofing. That term resonated quite well with a broader audience, was contested by those who participated in a #Femspoofing operation, which gave it visibility, and was then picked up by media (@MarieTurcan ). It is now also cited in a wikipedia article.

https://agoratoxica.com/femspoofing/

@Sina @stilldelvingh @potemkinvillage @wendysiegelman

#FemSpoofing – Agora toxica