Better #18

Kia ora,

Today is a longer read, and an important one.

I chatted with Nicole Skews-Poole about disinformation on social media - what it is, what it looks like, and what to do about it.

Nicole is the Director of Communications for The Disinformation Project, and our conversation was eye-opening as it touches on some of the worst parts of the internet (and humanity).

But Nicole is also extremely realistic and practical in how she approaches solutions to this scourge, and I love her advice on standing firm in the face of these bad actors.

Ultimately, I found our conversation empowering - we all have a role to play in trying to make things just a little better than what they are. Which is something I can dig.

I hope you enjoy this edition, and stay safe out there.

Cheers,
Seamus Boyer 👋

Firstly, Nicole, please tell us where you work and what your role is?

I’m a communications consultant who specialises in strategy, messaging and crisis response. I’m currently the Director of Communications for The Disinformation Project. I also have clients in different sectors, and I love helping communities and organisations tackle meaty, often scary issues on a range of topics.

Can you describe what you mean by disinformation, and what it looks like in the public sector social media space?

Unlike terms like ‘fake news’ which don’t really mean anything, disinformation is a specific, defined phenomenon that involves the deliberate spreading of false information in order to undermine or harm groups of people, movements, ideas and individuals. 

Disinformation contains key components like the use of technology to inflate the size and volume of disinformation spreaders. If you’re interested in understanding how researchers currently define the phenomenon, please check out our overview here: https://www.thedisinfoproject.org/understanding-disinformation 

In the public sector social space, this has created an unspoken norm where people responsible for digital public engagement for government agencies must now assess and respond to huge amounts of disinformation-based engagement. Often these engagements are hostile, threatening, or upsetting; like being told you’re part of a worldwide coverup of mass death caused by the COVID-19 vaccine, or that you’re enabling child abuse by supporting Pride month.

How widespread is the issue?  

In general, it’s helpful to understand that the nature of disinfo spreaders is to make it seem like there are more people out there who are believers than there actually are. That inflation of size involves a lot of increasingly easy smoke and mirrors tech, which disinformation groups use to make it seem like there’s an authentic grassroots movement of thousands of people who suddenly really, really care (for example) about the fact that the local councils are using te reo Māori. They try to make it seem like they're representative of a majority group, and we know that they're not.

Should we change how we operate? Do we post less content that might draw negative interactions?

I think we need to understand and acknowledge that social media looks and feels different now, and that it is going to increase your resourcing around content moderation in particular. But it’s equally important to understand that organisations must stay firm in this storm and double down on ensuring that the public can still access good sources of information online. 

The way that most people engage with social content is to simply view it, without liking or commenting. So comments are often not a true indication of public sentiment, but we still act like they are. Instead of worrying about getting negative comments, if a piece of content is important for your organisation, then it is still really worth sharing, and every bit of content you post can be a clear assertion of your values. 

For example, if you have a diversity workstream, or your organisation’s kaupapa centres on inclusion, and you're just out there doing really lovely content in the face of some quite yucky stuff, then that in itself is really important in the disinformation environment. It’s a balm, it’s a sanity check, and it’s a reminder that these online spaces do not belong to bad actors.

How can organisations support their social media teams in handling disinformation and maintaining a strong, consistent message?

If you've got a new or inexperienced staff member, or even if they are super experienced but don't feel like they have the team's support to really use those moderation tools and take a firm approach to bad information, then sometimes the more controversial stuff on the content calendar just falls off. 

But that in itself is what disinformation spreaders want. We talk a lot about the ‘silencing’ or ‘chilling’ effect of disinformation, particularly through the violent harassment that people in these groups increasingly take part in. So when you say, ‘I'm just not going to post anything about Pride month because I really don't want to get harassed,’ the people who sought to harass you in the first place win.

That said, with an increase in tangible threats to life from these groups, it's perfectly legitimate for organisations — like libraries, for instance — to say, ‘We can't do this. It's just not safe, so we're just not going to do it.’ Because they’re librarians, we can’t expect them to also be security experts.

But most of the time on social media, the answer is to say it anyway, to say it really clearly, and to expect that it's going to get a bit of a yuck response now because unfortunately, that's just what 2024 looks like. And stand really firm in your decision to keep talking about the stuff that you've committed to talking about.

And that means getting involved in the comments as well, right?

Yeah, absolutely. I think that's where we need to really use the tools we have at our disposal — filters are a huge one — and just make sure that we’ve always got a good nose for the sort of stuff that is showing up frequently in our spaces, and how people may be seeking to use our public channels for their own ends. 

Are we too permissive of the comments we allow on our channels?

Firstly, I’d say the comments have to add value. Very few organisations have a genuine need to engage with everyone, on every topic. So unless you are a public service channel that is responsible for getting life-saving information to people irrespective of whether they've just called you a racist slur, you actually have a lot more freedom over how your audience interacts with you.

The public has every right to express when they’re not happy with public services, government agencies or taxpayer-funded initiatives. They have the right to use social media to do that, and that’s usually a positive, democratic expression of opinions. However, groups in NZ are very keen to spread disinformation about what ‘free speech’ actually involves, which is ironic because we don’t have a free speech law in NZ like they do in the United States, so this is a perfect example of imported culture war nonsense. These groups want people to believe that free speech means that anyone's comments on social media will not only be hosted by every social media platform, especially if it's got any kind of taxpayer money behind it, but also that they are entitled to amplification in some way.

And that's simply not what free speech entails. In NZ we have ‘freedom of expression’ under the Bill of Rights Act (BORA), which means you shouldn’t, for instance, be arrested for expressing really horrendous racist views as long as you’re not inciting people to violence. However, you are not breaching someone’s rights under BORA by saying they can’t post nonsense on your page, especially if it’s a channel for information about public services. That’s not an unreasonable thing to say, and it's not a totalitarian anti-free-speech approach.

What if they are asking a question that we know is to try and draw a certain response?

That’s where you can use a one-and-done approach of, ‘You've asked me a question, I've given you a good faith answer, now we’re done’. Especially if you feel like they’re clearly rolling into it like, ‘Oh, can't wait to have an argument with a social media person’.

Because often the questions aren’t asked in good faith. What then?

In the public service, especially, you're going to have people who aren't your fans, right? And people who have genuine questions about why you've prioritised that work stream that you're showcasing. All I would say is that there are some really clear work streams where discussion is valuable, and some really clear work streams where it's not.

So for example, if you’re a local council showcasing a recently completed public mural that has Māori art elements woven through it, you can now unfortunately expect racist nonsense in the comments like, ‘There are more Pakeha in New Zealand than Māori so how come Māori art is everywhere?’. But that’s not a genuine question about public spending, and if those comments are left to descend further, it’s something that might make the mural artist never want to work with you again, or Māori feel awful looking at your social channels, or the majority of reasonable people in your community wonder why those comments are allowed on a platform you’re responsible for. Especially if you’re an organisation that is explicitly trying to be more inclusive of, or share leadership with, iwi Māori like most public agencies claim to be.

However, if you're having a conversation about cycle lanes and people aren’t swearing or abusive, but they are heated in their comments about their experience as cyclists, then I do think that you kind of just need to sit tight with them and be a bit uncomfortable about the fact that they're not your biggest fan.

What are some of the common tactics used on social media by disinformation groups?

The tactic is often to overwhelm. So that's where we see the use of inauthentic behavior to amplify their comments to make it seem like there are a lot more people than there are in reality. And when there are real people, they're quite organised about it. They will share links internally in their Telegram groups and be like, ‘Look at this woke nonsense on whatever page’. And unfortunately, if you find yourself in the crosshairs then the next step in escalation can kick in, which is the threats and the doxing.

To give an example, with the Boycott Spark stuff last year, it started off with people being like, ‘We don't like this company being so woke talking about Pride and trans rights’, then it very quickly turned into ‘Let’s boycott Spark’. Which, if you think about it, is not a genuine tactic in the monopoly environment in New Zealand - you can't meaningfully boycott Spark, and I don't believe that anyone calling for that was actually advocating for it. They just really wanted Spark to feel their wrath.

And then it escalated to bombarding Spark’s call centres, and they found the name of the social lead, they found her wife's name, they found what she does for a living, and they were posting photos of her. Unfortunately, once their ire has been directed in a big way by some key disinformation peddlers, then the next step is almost always some level of harassment and violence. I think that's where most organisations in New Zealand are not at all prepared for what happens when you have over 1000 comments on a post, or what happens when you have people calling you, or what happens when you have someone OIA your boss to find out what your social media protocol is, and what your name is, and why you deleted their comments.

We're still quite naive about all of that because we're only just starting to get to grips with that first phase of getting yucky stuff in the comments, etc. So, a lot of the work that I do is moving people from that first phase and preparing and building resilience for what happens when that second phase kicks in.

Online abuse is one thing, but when it spills into in-person events, that’s another level. How do we plan for that?

If something gets a lot of hate online, then that's a really great indicator of whether it's also going to be tricky offline. Unfortunately, local councils are another good example of that, and they are increasingly experiencing real, in-person awful stuff.

Last year, there was a public submission event about the ‘20-minute city’ idea in Hamilton. It was in a public hall with a large group of people, and a lot of them were catalysed by disinformation that made them believe transport improvements would lead to their property and cars being confiscated. When the deputy mayor got up to speak, one of the people in the crowd issued her with a “writ of execution” under an attempt at a citizen's arrest, and the whole room erupted in applause.

And that was in a public submissions meeting effectively about bike lanes and buses. So that means that any and all future submissions meetings need to have in-person security, and hostile reconnaissance planning before any public events now.

Do we get hung up on the need to be ‘transparent’ with our social media moderation, meaning we put up with more than we should?

A drive for transparency is fantastic and really laudable, so if you want to be super transparent about your work streams and your action plans, then just keep posting about them. Closing comments on a post that’s gotten nasty, or really strongly filtering according to your community guidelines that centre on respect and decency, is not a lack of transparency.

Likewise, hosting bad-faith debates isn't actually a friend of transparency, because it’s more likely to result in a bunch of people feeling unsafe to weigh in because it’s gotten so awful. This is part of that overall chilling effect, which disproportionately impacts marginalised groups who are afraid to express themselves in fear of harassment. Ironically, this is a genuine risk to people’s freedom of expression and one which ‘free speech’ groups conveniently ignore.

How do we deal with bad faith commenters?

I think people get really in their own heads about whether people who are clearly acting in bad faith are actually acting in bad faith. People need to trust their gut, and that ‘one-and-done approach’ is really important here. So if they have genuinely asked you something, and it’s in your lane to answer it, then answer it. But that doesn't mean you need to have a back-and-forth with a person who has nothing better to do that day. 

We also frequently see people who are unsure about whether they should delete comments that actively breach Facebook or Meta’s terms and conditions. It might be because they've used an asterisk in a swear word or used a new slur that people haven't caught up with, or written something like ‘I bet those totalitarians will delete this comment’. And moderators are there, hovering over the delete key wondering what to do when the comment literally breaks Facebook's own terms and conditions.

What is your advice to organisations grappling with some of these issues?

I think everyone is aware that social media is now a pretty polarised place. It's now a source of disinformation as well as good information. So think really hard about how and why you're using your internet presence. Not with a mind to running away if it gets scary, but just remind yourself what are the things that you need to communicate rain or shine, and it probably helps to then figure out what that rain looks like, before it starts raining.

The first thing I often do with clients who are coming to terms with how bad the internet has gotten, is to give them some time to actually make peace with it. This can be hard because the internet used to be this glistening idea of a place that was mostly good. I don't know whether we will go back to that place or not, but the more evidence comes out the more the advice is like ‘log off everything’ [laughs].

However, once you clock that this is the point we’re at now, it can actually fire people up in a really positive way. Understanding just how bad things are in the context of why you do the work you do, and why you need to keep doing it, is ultimately empowering and reaffirming. The best thing about my work is helping organisations understand how, when, and why they’re likely to be in disinformation firing lines, and why that makes their work even more important.

That’s it for this edition, thanks for reading.

Please hit reply and let me know what you enjoyed about it. I love hearing your feedback.

And I’ll see you in two weeks for more tips on how to get a little bit Better 👋