The concept of disinformation is quite impressive in that it provides a pretext to suppress speech that one admits is not even false. With the claim of disnformation, one merely has to say a given position is meant to "sow dissent".
Such an approach has to assume that the average citizen has a rather fragile and infantile perspective (possibly true in the modern world). It is not sufficient that a manipulative argument be revealed as manipulative, rather such an argument is so dangerous it must be suppressed altogether to limit the damage it could do.
To quote the infamous Guy Debord: "The relatively new concept of disinformation was recently imported from Russia, along with many other inventions useful in the management of modern states. It is always openly employed by a power, or, consequently, by the people who hold a fragment of economic or political authority, in order to maintain what is established; and always in a counter-offensive role. Whatever can oppose a single official truth must necessarily be disinformation emanating from hostile or at least rival powers, and must have been intentionally falsified by malevolence. Disinformation would not be simple negation of a fact which suits the authorities, or the simple affirmation of a fact which does not suit them: that is called psychosis. Unlike the pure lie, disinformation -- and here is why the concept is interesting to the defenders of the dominant society -- must inevitably contain a degree of truth but deliberately manipulated by a skillful enemy. The power that speaks of disinformation does not believe itself to be absolutely faultless, but knows that it can attribute to any precise criticism the excessive insignificance which is in the nature of disinformation, and of the sort that it will never have to admit to a particular fault." [1]
You know, you made me think how it's ironic that by blurring the lines of information/truth, those same lines in the sand really end up getting starker than ever in a truly vicious cycle of 'the other is the enemy'.
Appreciate you for introducing me to Guy Deboard as well - talk about a name that went under the radar.
> it provides a pretext to suppress speech that one admits is not even false
That’s the opposite of what the linked article says. Tumblr wrote in their statement “Disinformation campaigns work because they know people don’t fact check.”
Such an approach has to assume that the average citizen has a rather fragile and infantile perspective (possibly true in the modern world). It is not sufficient that a manipulative argument be revealed as manipulative, rather such an argument is so dangerous it must be suppressed altogether to limit the damage it could do.
To quote the infamous Guy Debord: "The relatively new concept of disinformation was recently imported from Russia, along with many other inventions useful in the management of modern states. It is always openly employed by a power, or, consequently, by the people who hold a fragment of economic or political authority, in order to maintain what is established; and always in a counter-offensive role. Whatever can oppose a single official truth must necessarily be disinformation emanating from hostile or at least rival powers, and must have been intentionally falsified by malevolence. Disinformation would not be simple negation of a fact which suits the authorities, or the simple affirmation of a fact which does not suit them: that is called psychosis. Unlike the pure lie, disinformation -- and here is why the concept is interesting to the defenders of the dominant society -- must inevitably contain a degree of truth but deliberately manipulated by a skillful enemy. The power that speaks of disinformation does not believe itself to be absolutely faultless, but knows that it can attribute to any precise criticism the excessive insignificance which is in the nature of disinformation, and of the sort that it will never have to admit to a particular fault." [1]
[1] http://www.notbored.org/commentaires.html