Internet

Stochastic terrorism is a term that has emerged in the lexicon of political and social analysis to describe a method of inciting violence indirectly through the use of mass communication. This concept is predicated on the principle that while not everyone in an audience will act on violent rhetoric, a small percentage might.

The term “stochastic” refers to a process that is randomly determined; it implies that the specific outcomes are unpredictable, yet the overall distribution of these outcomes follows a pattern that can be statistically analyzed. In the context of stochastic terrorism, it means that while it is uncertain who will act on incendiary messages and violent political rhetoric, it is almost certain that someone will.

The nature of stochastic terrorism

Stochastic terrorism involves the dissemination of public statements, whether through speeches, social media, or traditional media, that incite violence. The individuals or entities spreading such rhetoric may not directly call for political violence. Instead, they create an atmosphere charged with tension and hostility, suggesting that action must be taken against a perceived threat or enemy. This indirect incitement provides plausible deniability, as those who broadcast the messages can claim they never explicitly advocated for violence.

Prominent stochastic terrorism examples

The following are just a few notable illustrative examples of stochastic terrorism:

  1. The Oklahoma City Bombing (1995): Timothy McVeigh, influenced by extremist anti-government rhetoric, the 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff, and the 1993 siege at Waco, Texas, detonated a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people. This act was fueled by ideologies that demonized the federal government, highlighting how extremism and extremist propaganda can inspire individuals to commit acts of terror.
  2. The Oslo and UtΓΈya Attacks (2011): Anders Behring Breivik, driven by anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant beliefs, bombed government buildings in Oslo, Norway, then shot and killed 69 people at a youth camp on the island of UtΓΈya. Breivik’s manifesto cited many sources that painted Islam and multiculturalism as existential threats to Europe, showing the deadly impact of extremist online echo chambers and the pathology of right-wing ideologies such as Great Replacement Theory.
  3. The Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting (2018): Robert Bowers, influenced by white supremacist ideologies and conspiracy theories about migrant caravans, killed 11 worshippers in a synagogue. His actions were preceded by social media posts that echoed hate speech and conspiracy theories rampant in certain online communities, demonstrating the lethal consequences of unmoderated hateful rhetoric.
  4. The El Paso Shooting (2019): Patrick Crusius targeted a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 23 people, motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment and rhetoric about a “Hispanic invasion” of Texas. His manifesto mirrored language used in certain media and political discourse, underscoring the danger of using dehumanizing language against minority groups.
  5. Christchurch Mosque Shootings (2019): Brenton Tarrant live-streamed his attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 51 people, influenced by white supremacist beliefs and online forums that amplified Islamophobic rhetoric. The attacker’s manifesto and online activity were steeped in extremist content, illustrating the role of internet subcultures in radicalizing individuals.

Stochastic terrorism in right-wing politics in the US

In the United States, the concept of stochastic terrorism has become increasingly relevant in analyzing the tactics employed by certain right-wing entities and individuals. While the phenomenon is not exclusive to any single political spectrum, recent years have seen notable instances where right-wing rhetoric has been linked to acts of violence.

The January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol serves as a stark example of stochastic terrorism. The event was preceded by months of unfounded claims of electoral fraud and calls to “stop the steal,” amplified by right-wing media outlets and figures — including then-President Trump who had extraordinary motivation to portray his 2020 election loss as a victory in order to stay in power. This rhetoric created a charged environment, leading some individuals to believe that violent action was a justified response to defend democracy.

The role of media and technology

Right-wing media platforms have played a significant role in amplifying messages that could potentially incite stochastic terrorism. Through the strategic use of incendiary language, disinformation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories, these platforms have the power to reach vast audiences and influence susceptible individuals to commit acts of violence.

The advent of social media has further complicated the landscape, enabling the rapid spread of extremist rhetoric. The decentralized nature of these platforms allows for the creation of echo chambers where inflammatory messages are not only amplified but also go unchallenged, increasing the risk of radicalization.

Challenges and implications

Stochastic terrorism presents significant legal and societal challenges. The indirect nature of incitement complicates efforts to hold individuals accountable for the violence that their rhetoric may inspire. Moreover, the phenomenon raises critical questions about the balance between free speech and the prevention of violence, challenging societies to find ways to protect democratic values while preventing harm.

Moving forward

Addressing stochastic terrorism requires a multifaceted approach. This includes promoting responsible speech among public figures, enhancing critical thinking and media literacy among the public, and developing legal and regulatory frameworks that can effectively address the unique challenges posed by this form of terrorism. Ultimately, combating stochastic terrorism is not just about preventing violence; it’s about preserving the integrity of democratic societies and ensuring that public discourse does not become a catalyst for harm.

Understanding and mitigating the effects of stochastic terrorism is crucial in today’s increasingly polarized world. By recognizing the patterns and mechanisms through which violence is indirectly incited, societies can work towards more cohesive and peaceful discourse, ensuring that democracy is protected from the forces that seek to undermine it through fear and division.

Read more

Microtargeting is a marketing and political strategy that leverages data analytics to deliver customized messages to specific groups within a larger population. This approach has become increasingly prevalent in the realms of digital media and advertising, and its influence on political campaigns has grown significantly.

Understanding microtargeting

Microtargeting begins with the collection and analysis of vast amounts of data about individuals. This data can include demographics (age, gender, income), psychographics (interests, habits, values), and behaviors (purchase history, online activity). By analyzing this data, organizations can identify small, specific groups of people who share common characteristics or interests. The next step involves crafting tailored messages that resonate with these groups, significantly increasing the likelihood of engagement compared to broad, one-size-fits-all communications.

Microtargeting and digital media

Digital media platforms, with their treasure troves of user data, have become the primary arenas for microtargeting. Social media networks, search engines, and websites collect extensive information on user behavior, preferences, and interactions. This data enables advertisers and organizations to identify and segment their audiences with remarkable precision.

Microtargeting, by Midjourney

Digital platforms offer sophisticated tools that allow for the delivery of customized content directly to individuals or narrowly defined groups, ensuring that the message is relevant and appealing to each recipient. The interactive nature of digital media also provides immediate feedback, allowing for the refinement of targeting strategies in real time.

Application in advertising

In the advertising domain, microtargeting has revolutionized how brands connect with consumers. Rather than casting a wide net with generic advertisements, companies can now send personalized messages that speak directly to the needs and desires of their target audience. This approach can improve the effectiveness of advertising campaigns — but comes with a tradeoff in terms of user data privacy.

Microtargeted ads can appear on social media feeds, as search engine results, within mobile apps, or as personalized email campaigns, making them a versatile tool for marketers. Thanks to growing awareness of the data privacy implications — including the passage of regulations including the GDPR, CCPA, DMA and others — users are beginning to have more control over what data is collected about them and how it is used.

Expanding role in political campaigns

The impact of microtargeting reaches its zenith in the realm of political campaigns. Political parties and candidates use microtargeting to understand voter preferences, concerns, and motivations at an unprecedented level of detail. This intelligence allows campaigns to tailor their communications, focusing on issues that resonate with specific voter segments.

For example, a campaign might send messages about environmental policies to voters identified as being concerned about climate change, while emphasizing tax reform to those worried about economic issues. A campaign might target swing voters with characteristics that match their party’s more consistent voting base, hoping to influence their decision to vote for the “right” candidate.

Microtargeting in politics also extends to voter mobilization efforts. Campaigns can identify individuals who are supportive but historically less likely to vote and target them with messages designed to motivate them to get to the polls. Similarly, microtargeting can help in shaping campaign strategies, determining where to hold rallies, whom to engage for endorsements, and what issues to highlight in speeches.

Ethical considerations and challenges

The rise of microtargeting raises significant ethical and moral questions and challenges. Concerns about privacy, data protection, and the potential for manipulation are at the forefront. The use of personal information for targeting purposes has sparked debates on the need for stricter regulation and transparency. In politics, there’s apprehension that microtargeting might deepen societal divisions by enabling campaigns to exploit sensitive issues or disseminate misleading information — or even disinformation — to susceptible groups.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of microtargeting in influencing consumer behavior and voter decisions has led to calls for more responsible use of data analytics. Critics argue for the development of ethical guidelines that balance the benefits of personalized communication with the imperative to protect individual privacy and maintain democratic integrity.

Microtargeting represents a significant evolution in the way organizations communicate with individuals, driven by advances in data analytics and digital technology. Its application across advertising and, more notably, political campaigns, has demonstrated its power to influence behavior and decision-making.

However, as microtargeting continues to evolve, it will be crucial for society to address the ethical and regulatory challenges it presents. Ensuring transparency, protecting privacy, and promoting responsible use will be essential in harnessing the benefits of microtargeting while mitigating its potential risks. As we move forward, the dialogue between technology, ethics, and regulation will shape the future of microtargeting in our increasingly digital world.

Read more

The backfire effect is a cognitive phenomenon that occurs when individuals are presented with information that contradicts their existing beliefs, leading them not only to reject the challenging information but also to further entrench themselves in their original beliefs.

This effect is counterintuitive, as one might expect that presenting factual information would correct misconceptions. However, due to various psychological mechanisms, the opposite can occur, complicating efforts to counter misinformation, disinformation, and the spread of conspiracy theories.

Origin and mechanism

The term “backfire effect” was popularized by researchers Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, who in 2010 conducted studies demonstrating that corrections to false political information could actually deepen an individual’s commitment to their initial misconception. This effect is thought to stem from a combination of cognitive dissonance (the discomfort experienced when holding two conflicting beliefs) and identity-protective cognition (wherein individuals process information in a way that protects their sense of identity and group belonging).

Relation to media, disinformation, echo chambers, and media bubbles

In the context of media and disinformation, the backfire effect is particularly relevant. The proliferation of digital media platforms has made it easier than ever for individuals to encounter information that contradicts their beliefs — but paradoxically, it has also made it easier for them to insulate themselves in echo chambers and media bubblesβ€”environments where their existing beliefs are constantly reinforced and rarely challenged.

Echo chambers refer to situations where individuals are exposed only to opinions and information that reinforce their existing beliefs, limiting their exposure to diverse perspectives. Media bubbles are similar, often facilitated by algorithms on social media platforms that curate content to match users’ interests and past behaviors, inadvertently reinforcing their existing beliefs and psychological biases.

Disinformation campaigns can exploit these dynamics by deliberately spreading misleading or false information, knowing that it is likely to be uncritically accepted and amplified within certain echo chambers or media bubbles. This can exacerbate the backfire effect, as attempts to correct the misinformation can lead to individuals further entrenching themselves in the false beliefs, especially if those beliefs are tied to their identity or worldview.

How the backfire effect happens

The backfire effect happens through a few key psychological processes:

  1. Cognitive Dissonance: When confronted with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, individuals experience discomfort. To alleviate this discomfort, they often reject the new information in favor of their pre-existing beliefs.
  2. Confirmation Bias: Individuals tend to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs and disregard information that contradicts them. This tendency towards bias can lead them to misinterpret or dismiss corrective information.
  3. Identity Defense: For many, beliefs are tied to their identity and social groups. Challenging these beliefs can feel like a personal attack, leading individuals to double down on their beliefs as a form of identity defense.

Prevention and mitigation

Preventing the backfire effect and its impact on public discourse and belief systems requires a multifaceted approach:

  1. Promote Media Literacy: Educating the public on how to critically evaluate sources and understand the mechanisms behind the spread of misinformation can empower individuals to think critically and assess the information they encounter.
  2. Encourage Exposure to Diverse Viewpoints: Breaking out of media bubbles and echo chambers by intentionally seeking out and engaging with a variety of perspectives can reduce the likelihood of the backfire effect by making conflicting information less threatening and more normal.
  3. Emphasize Shared Values: Framing challenging information in the context of shared values or goals can make it less threatening to an individual’s identity, reducing the defensive reaction.
  4. Use Fact-Checking and Corrections Carefully: Presenting corrections in a way that is non-confrontational and, when possible, aligns with the individual’s worldview or values can make the correction more acceptable. Visual aids and narratives that resonate with the individual’s experiences or beliefs can also be more effective than plain factual corrections.
  5. Foster Open Dialogue: Encouraging open, respectful conversations about contentious issues can help to humanize opposing viewpoints and reduce the instinctive defensive reactions to conflicting information.

The backfire effect presents a significant challenge in the fight against misinformation and disinformation, particularly in the context of digital media. Understanding the psychological underpinnings of this effect is crucial for developing strategies to promote a more informed and less polarized public discourse. By fostering critical thinking, encouraging exposure to diverse viewpoints, and promoting respectful dialogue, it may be possible to mitigate the impact of the backfire effect and create a healthier information ecosystem.

Read more

The “wallpaper effect” is a phenomenon in media, propaganda, and disinformation where individuals become influenced or even indoctrinated by being continuously exposed to a particular set of ideas, perspectives, or ideologies. This effect is akin to wallpaper in a room, which, though initially noticeable, becomes part of the unnoticed background over time.

The wallpaper effect plays a significant role in shaping public opinion and individual beliefs, often without the conscious awareness of the individuals affected.

Origins and mechanisms

The term “wallpaper effect” stems from the idea that constant exposure to a specific type of media or messaging can subconsciously influence an individual’s perception and beliefs, similar to how wallpaper in a room becomes a subtle but constant presence. This effect is potentiated by the human tendency to seek information that aligns with existing beliefs, known as confirmation bias. It leads to a situation where diverse viewpoints are overlooked, and a singular perspective dominates an individual’s information landscape.

The wallpaper effect, by DALL-E 3

Media and information bubbles

In the context of media, the wallpaper effect is exacerbated by the formation of information bubbles or echo chambers. These are environments where a person is exposed only to opinions and information that reinforce their existing beliefs.

The rise of digital media and personalized content algorithms has intensified this effect, as users often receive news and information tailored to their preferences, further entrenching their existing viewpoints. Even more insidiously, social media platforms tend to earn higher profits when they fill users’ feeds with ideological perspectives they already agree with. Even more profitable is the process of tilting them towards more extreme versions of those beliefs — a practice that in other contexts we call “radicalization.”

Role in propaganda and disinformation

The wallpaper effect is a critical tool in propaganda and disinformation campaigns. By consistently presenting a specific narrative or viewpoint, these campaigns can subtly alter the perceptions and beliefs of the target audience. Over time, the repeated exposure to these biased or false narratives becomes a backdrop to the individual’s understanding of events, issues, or groups, often leading to misconceptions or unwarranted biases.

Psychological impact

The psychological impact of the wallpaper effect is profound. It can lead to a narrowing of perspective, where individuals become less open to new information or alternative viewpoints. This effect can foster polarized communities and hyper partisan politics, where dialogue and understanding between differing viewpoints become increasingly difficult.

Case studies and examples

Historically, authoritarian regimes have used the wallpaper effect to control public opinion and suppress dissent. By monopolizing the media landscape and continuously broadcasting their propaganda, these regimes effectively shaped the public’s perception of reality.

In contemporary times, this effect is also seen in democracies, where partisan news outlets or social media algorithms create a similar, though more fragmented, landscape of information bubbles.

Counteracting the wallpaper effect

Counteracting the wallpaper effect involves a multifaceted approach. Media literacy education is crucial, as it empowers individuals to critically analyze and understand the sources and content of information they consume.

Encouraging exposure to a wide range of viewpoints and promoting critical thinking skills are also essential strategies. Additionally, reforms in digital media algorithms to promote diverse viewpoints and reduce the creation of echo chambers can help mitigate this effect.

Implications for democracy and society

The wallpaper effect has significant implications for democracy and society. It can lead to a polarized public, where consensus and compromise become challenging to achieve. The narrowing of perspective and entrenchment of beliefs can undermine democratic discourse, leading to increased societal divisions and decreased trust in media and institutions.

The wallpaper effect is a critical phenomenon that shapes public opinion and belief systems. Its influence is subtle yet profound, as constant exposure to a specific set of ideas can subconsciously mold an individual’s worldview. Understanding and addressing this effect is essential in promoting a healthy, informed, and open society. Efforts to enhance media literacy, promote diverse viewpoints, and reform digital media practices are key to mitigating the wallpaper effect and fostering a more informed and less polarized public.

Read more

Election denialism, the refusal to accept credible election outcomes, has significantly impacted U.S. history, especially in recent years. This phenomenon is not entirely new; election denial has roots that stretch back through various periods of American history. However, its prevalence and intensity have surged in the contemporary digital and political landscape, influencing public trust, political discourse, and the very fabric of democracy.

Historical context

Historically, disputes over election outcomes are as old as the U.S. electoral system itself. For instance, the fiercely contested 1800 election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams resulted in a constitutional amendment (the 12th Amendment) to prevent similar confusion in the future. The 1876 election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden was resolved through the Compromise of 1877, which effectively ended Reconstruction and had profound effects on the Southern United States.

Yet these instances, while contentious, were resolved within the framework of existing legal and political mechanisms, without denying the legitimacy of the electoral process itself. Over time, claims of election fraud would come to be levied against the electoral and political system itself — with dangerous implications for the peaceful transfer of power upon which democracy rests.

Voting box in an election, by Midjourney

The 21st century and digital influence

Fast forward to the 21st century, and election denialism has taken on new dimensions, fueled by the rapid dissemination of disinformation (and misinformation) through digital media and a polarized political climate. The 2000 Presidential election, with its razor-thin margins and weeks of legal battles over Florida’s vote count, tested the country’s faith in the electoral process.

Although the Supreme Court‘s decision in Bush v. Gore was deeply controversial, Al Gore’s concession helped to maintain the American tradition of peaceful transitions of power.

The 2020 Election: A flashpoint

The 2020 election, marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots, became a flashpoint for election denialism. Claims of widespread voter fraud and electoral malfeasance were propagated at the highest levels of government, despite a lack of evidence substantiated by multiple recounts, audits, and legal proceedings across several states.

The refusal to concede by President Trump and the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, marked a watershed moment in U.S. history, where election denialism moved from the fringes to the center of political discourse, challenging the norms of democratic transition. Widely referred to as The Big Lie, the baseless claims of election fraud that persist in the right-wing to this day are considered themselves to be a form of election fraud by justice officials, legal analysts, and a host of concerned citizens worried about ongoing attempts to overthrow democracy in the United States.

Implications, public trust, and voter suppression

The implications of this recent surge in election denialism are far-reaching. It has eroded public trust in the electoral system, with polls indicating a significant portion of the American populace doubting the legitimacy of election results. This skepticism is not limited to the national level but has trickled down to local elections, with election officials facing threats and harassment. The spread of misinformation, propaganda, and conspiracy theories about electoral processes and outcomes has become a tool for political mobilization, often exacerbating divisions within the American society.

Moreover, election denialism has prompted legislative responses at the state level, with numerous bills introduced to restrict voting access in the name of election security. These measures have sparked debates about voter suppression and the balance between securing elections and ensuring broad electoral participation. The challenge lies in addressing legitimate concerns about election integrity while avoiding the disenfranchisement of eligible voters.

Calls for reform and strengthening democracy

In response to these challenges, there have been calls for reforms to strengthen the resilience of the U.S. electoral system. These include measures to enhance the security and transparency of the voting process, improve the accuracy of voter rolls, and counter misinformation about elections. There’s also a growing emphasis on civic education to foster a more informed electorate capable of critically evaluating electoral information.

The rise of election denialism in recent years highlights the fragility of democratic norms and the crucial role of trust in the electoral process. While disputes over election outcomes are not new, the scale and impact of recent episodes pose unique challenges to American democracy. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach, including legal, educational, and technological interventions, to reinforce the foundations of democratic governance and ensure that the will of the people is accurately and fairly represented.

Read more

A “filter bubble” is a concept in the realm of digital publishing, media, and web technology, particularly significant in understanding the dynamics of disinformation and political polarization. At its core, a filter bubble is a state of intellectual isolation that can occur when algorithms selectively guess what information a user would like to see based on past behavior and preferences. This concept is crucial in the digital age, where much of our information comes from the internet and online sources.

Origins and mechanics

The term was popularized by internet activist Eli Pariser around 2011. It describes how personalization algorithms in search engines and social media platforms can isolate users in cultural or ideological bubbles. These algorithms, driven by AI and machine learning, curate content – be it news, search results, or social media posts – based on individual user preferences, search histories, and previous interactions.

filter bubble, by DALL-E 3

The intended purpose is to enhance user experience by providing relevant and tailored content. However, this leads to a situation where users are less likely to encounter information that challenges or broadens their worldview.

Filter bubbles in the context of disinformation

In the sphere of media and information, filter bubbles can exacerbate the spread of disinformation and propaganda. When users are consistently exposed to a certain type of content, especially if it’s sensational or aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, they become more susceptible to misinformation. This effect is compounded on platforms where sensational content is more likely to be shared and become viral, often irrespective of its accuracy.

Disinformation campaigns, aware of these dynamics, often exploit filter bubbles to spread misleading narratives. By tailoring content to specific groups, they can effectively reinforce existing beliefs or sow discord, making it a significant challenge in the fight against fake news and propaganda.

Impact on political beliefs and US politics

The role of filter bubbles in shaping political beliefs is profound, particularly in the polarized landscape of recent US politics. These bubbles create echo chambers where one-sided political views are amplified without exposure to opposing viewpoints. This can intensify partisanship, as individuals within these bubbles are more likely to develop extreme views and less likely to understand or empathize with the other side.

Recent years in the US have seen a stark divide in political beliefs, influenced heavily by the media sources individuals consume. For instance, the right and left wings of the political spectrum often inhabit separate media ecosystems, with their own preferred news sources and social media platforms. This separation contributes to a lack of shared reality, where even basic facts can be subject to dispute, complicating political discourse and decision-making.

Filter bubbles in elections and political campaigns

Political campaigns have increasingly utilized data analytics and targeted advertising to reach potential voters within these filter bubbles. While this can be an effective campaign strategy, it also means that voters receive highly personalized messages that can reinforce their existing beliefs and psychological biases, rather than presenting a diverse range of perspectives.

Breaking out of filter bubbles

Addressing the challenges posed by filter bubbles involves both individual and systemic actions. On the individual level, it requires awareness and a conscious effort to seek out diverse sources of information. On a systemic level, it calls for responsibility from tech companies to modify their algorithms to expose users to a broader range of content and viewpoints.

Filter bubbles play a significant role in the dissemination and reception of information in today’s digital age. Their impact on political beliefs and the democratic process — indeed, on democracy itself — in the United States cannot be overstated. Understanding and mitigating the effects of filter bubbles is crucial in fostering a well-informed public, capable of critical thinking and engaging in healthy democratic discourse.

Read more

The concept of a “honeypot” in the realms of cybersecurity and information warfare is a fascinating and complex one, straddling the line between deception and defense. At its core, a honeypot is a security mechanism designed to mimic systems, data, or resources to attract and detect unauthorized users or attackers, essentially acting as digital bait. By engaging attackers, honeypots serve multiple purposes: they can distract adversaries from more valuable targets, gather intelligence on attack methods, and help in enhancing security measures.

Origins and Usage

The use of honeypots dates back to the early days of computer networks, evolving significantly with the internet‘s expansion. Initially, they were simple traps set to detect anyone probing a network. However, as cyber threats grew more sophisticated, so did honeypots, transforming into complex systems designed to emulate entire networks, applications, or databases to lure in cybercriminals.

A honeypot illustration with a circuit board beset by a bee, by Midjourney

Honeypots are used by a variety of entities, including corporate IT departments, cybersecurity firms, government agencies, and even individuals passionate about cybersecurity. Their versatility means they can be deployed in almost any context where digital security is a concern, from protecting corporate data to safeguarding national security.

Types and purposes

There are several types of honeypots, ranging from low-interaction honeypots, which simulate only the services and applications attackers might find interesting, to high-interaction honeypots, which are complex and fully-functional systems designed to engage attackers more deeply. The type chosen depends on the specific goals of the deployment, whether it’s to gather intelligence, study attack patterns, or improve defensive strategies.

In the context of information warfare, honeypots serve as a tool for deception and intelligence gathering. They can be used to mislead adversaries about the capabilities or intentions of a state or organization, capture malware samples, and even identify vulnerabilities in the attacker’s strategies. By analyzing the interactions attackers have with these traps, defenders can gain insights into their techniques, tools, and procedures (TTPs), enabling them to better anticipate and mitigate future threats.

Historical effects

Historically, honeypots have had significant impacts on both cybersecurity and information warfare. They’ve led to the discovery of new malware strains, helped dismantle botnets, and provided critical intelligence about state-sponsored cyber operations. For example, honeypots have been instrumental in tracking the activities of sophisticated hacking groups, leading to a deeper understanding of their targets and methods, which, in turn, has informed national security strategies and cybersecurity policies.

One notable example is the GhostNet investigation, which uncovered a significant cyber espionage network targeting diplomatic and governmental institutions worldwide. Honeypots played a key role in identifying the malware and command-and-control servers used in these attacks, highlighting the effectiveness of these tools in uncovering covert operations.

Honeypot hackers and cybercriminals

Ethical and practical considerations

While the benefits of honeypots are clear, their deployment is not without ethical and practical considerations. There’s a fine line between deception for defense and entrapment, raising questions about the legality and morality of certain honeypot operations, especially in international contexts where laws and norms may vary widely.

Moreover, the effectiveness of a honeypot depends on its believability and the skill with which it’s deployed and monitored. Poorly configured honeypots might not only fail to attract attackers but could also become liabilities, offering real vulnerabilities to be exploited.

Cyber attackers and defenders

Honeypots are a critical component of the cybersecurity and information warfare landscapes, providing valuable insights into attacker behaviors and tactics. They reflect the ongoing cat-and-mouse game between cyber attackers and defenders, evolving in response to the increasing sophistication of threats. As digital technologies continue to permeate all aspects of life, the strategic deployment of honeypots will remain a vital tactic in the arsenal of those looking to protect digital assets and information. Their historical impacts demonstrate their value, and ongoing advancements in technology promise even greater potential in understanding and combating cyber threats.

By serving as a mirror to the tactics and techniques of adversaries, honeypots help illuminate the shadowy world of cyber warfare, making them indispensable tools for anyone committed to safeguarding information in an increasingly interconnected world.

Read more

The term “hoax” is derived from “hocus,” a term that has been in use since the late 18th century. It originally referred to a trick or deception, often of a playful or harmless nature. The essence of a hoax was its capacity to deceive, typically for entertainment or to prove a point without malicious intent. Over time, the scope and implications of a hoax have broadened significantly. What was once a term denoting jest or trickery has morphed into a label for deliberate falsehoods intended to mislead or manipulate public perception.

From playful deception to malicious misinformation

As society entered the age of mass communication, the potential reach and impact of hoaxes expanded dramatically. The advent of newspapers, radio, television, and eventually the internet and social media platforms, transformed the way informationβ€”and misinformationβ€”circulated. Hoaxes began to be used not just for amusement but for more nefarious purposes, including political manipulation, financial fraud, and social engineering. The line between a harmless prank and damaging disinformation and misinformation became increasingly blurred.

The political weaponization of “hoax”

In the contemporary political landscape, particularly within the US, the term “hoax” has been co-opted as a tool for disinformation and propaganda. This strategic appropriation has been most visible among certain factions of the right-wing, where it is used to discredit damaging information, undermine factual reporting, and challenge the legitimacy of institutional findings or scientific consensus. This application of “hoax” serves multiple purposes: it seeks to sow doubt, rally political bases, and divert attention from substantive issues.

the politicization of hoaxes, via fake scandals that tie up the media unwittingly in bullshit for years, by DALL-E 3

This tactic involves labeling genuine concerns, credible investigations, and verified facts as “hoaxes” to delegitimize opponents and minimize the impact of damaging revelations. It is a form of gaslighting on a mass scale, where the goal is not just to deny wrongdoing but to erode the very foundations of truth and consensus. By branding something as a “hoax,” these actors attempt to preemptively dismiss any criticism or negative information, regardless of its veracity.

Case Studies: The “Hoax” label in action

High-profile instances of this strategy include the dismissal of climate change data, the denial of election results, and the rejection of public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic. In each case, the term “hoax” has been employed not as a description of a specific act of deception, but as a blanket term intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of scientifically or empirically supported conclusions. This usage represents a significant departure from the term’s origins, emphasizing denial and division over dialogue and discovery.

The impact on public discourse and trust

The strategic labeling of inconvenient truths as “hoaxes” has profound implications for public discourse and trust in institutions. It creates an environment where facts are fungible, and truth is contingent on political allegiance rather than empirical evidence. This erosion of shared reality undermines democratic processes, hampers effective governance, and polarizes society.

Moreover, the frequent use of “hoax” in political discourse dilutes the term’s meaning and impact, making it more difficult to identify and respond to genuine instances of deception. When everything can be dismissed as a hoax, the capacity for critical engagement and informed decision-making is significantly compromised.

Moving Forward: Navigating a “post-hoax” landscape

The challenge moving forward is to reclaim the narrative space that has been distorted by the misuse of “hoax” and similar terms. This involves promoting media literacy, encouraging critical thinking, and fostering a public culture that values truth and accountability over partisanship. It also requires the media, educators, and public figures to be vigilant in their language, carefully distinguishing between genuine skepticism and disingenuous dismissal.

The evolution of “hoax” from a term denoting playful deception to a tool for political disinformation reflects broader shifts in how information, truth, and reality are contested in the public sphere. Understanding this transformation is crucial for navigating the complexities of the modern informational landscape and for fostering a more informed, resilient, and cohesive society.

Read more

republican vs. democrat cage match boxing ring

Buckle up, we’re in for a wild ride. Many of the serious scholars of political history and authoritarian regimes are sounding the alarm bells that, although it is a very very good thing that we got the Trump crime family out of the Oval Office, it is still a very very bad thing for America to have so rapidly tilted towards authoritarianism. How did we get here?! How has hyper partisanship escalated to the point of an attempted coup by 126 sitting Republican House Representatives? How has political polarization gotten this bad?

These are some of the resources that have helped me continue grappling with that question, and with the rapidly shifting landscape of information warfare. How can we understand this era of polarization, this age of tribalism? This outline is a work in progress, and I’m planning to keep adding to this list as the tape keeps rolling.

Right-Wing Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is both a personality type and a form of government — it operates at both the interpersonal and the societal level. The words authoritarian and fascist are often used interchangeably, but fascism is a more specific type of authoritarianism, and far more historically recent.

America has had flavors of authoritarianism since its founding, and when fascism came along the right-wing authoritarians ate it up — and deeply wanted the United States to be a part of it. Only after they became social pariahs did they change position to support American involvement in World War II — and some persisted even after the attack of Pearl Harbor.

With Project 2025, Trump now openly threatens fascism on America — and sadly, some are eager for it. The psychology behind both authoritarian leaders and followers is fascinating, overlooked, and misunderstood.

Scholars of authoritarianism

  • Hannah Arendt — The Origins of Totalitarianism
  • Bob Altemeyer — The Authoritarians
  • Derrida — the logic of the unconscious; performativity in the act of lying
  • ketman — Ketman is the psychological concept of concealing one’s true aims, akin to doublethink in Orwell’s 1984, that served as a central theme to Polish dissident CzesΕ‚aw MiΕ‚osz‘s book The Captive Mind about intellectual life under totalitarianism during the Communist post-WWII occupation.
  • Erich Fromm — coined the term “malignant narcissism” to describe the psychological character of the Nazis. He also wrote extensively about the mindset of the authoritarian follower in his seminal work, Escape from Freedom.
  • Eric Hoffer — his book The True Believers explores the mind of the authoritarian follower, and the appeal of losing oneself in a totalist movement
  • Fascism — elevation of the id as the source of truth; enthusiasm for political violence
  • Tyrants and dictators
  • John Dean — 3 types of authoritarian personality:
    • social dominators
    • authoritarian followers
    • double highs — social dominators who can “switch” to become followers in certain circumstances
  • Loyalty; hero worship
    • Freud = deeply distrustful of hero worship and worried that it indulged people’s needs for vertical authority. He found the archetype of the authoritarian primal father very troubling.
  • Ayn Rand
    • The Fountainhead (1943)
    • Atlas Shrugged (1957)
    • Objectivism ideology
  • Greatness Thinking; heroic individualism
  • Nietszche — will to power; the Uberman
  • Richard Hofstadter — The Paranoid Style
  • George Lakoff — moral framing; strict father morality
  • Neil Postman — Entertaining Ourselves to Death
  • Anti-Intellectualism
  • Can be disguised as hyper-rationalism (Communism)
  • More authoritarianism books
Continue reading Hyper Partisanship: How to understand American political polarization
Read more

Surveillance Capitalism Dictionary

They were inspired by hippies, but Orwell would fear them. The giants of Silicon Valley started out trying to outsmart The Man, and in the process became him. And so, surveillance capitalism got born. Such is the story of corruption since time immemorial.

This surveillance capitalism dictionary of surveillance is a work in progress! Check back for further updates!

TermDefinition
algorithmA set of instructions that programmers give to computers to run software and make decisions.
artificial intelligence (AI)
Bayes' Theorem
bioinformaticsA technical and computational subfield of genetics, concerned with the information and data encoded by our genes and genetic codes.
child machineAlan Turing's concept for developing an "adult brain" by creating a child brain and giving it an education
CHINOOKcheckers program that becomes the first time an AI wins an official world championship in a game of skill, in 1994
click-wrap
collateral behavioral data
common carrierA sort of hybrid public interest served by corporate promise of meeting a high bar of neutrality -- a historical precedent setby the early Bell system monopoly, and an issue of public-private strife today with the advent of the internet.
contracts of adhesion
cookiesSmall packets of data deposited by the vast majority of websites you visit, that store information in the browser as a way to extract intelligence about their users and visitors.
corpusIn Natural Language Processing, a compendium of words used to "train" the AI to understand patterns in new texts.
decision trees
Deep BlueChess program that beats world chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997
deep learning
evolutionary algorithms
Facebook
facial recognition
Flash Crash of 2010sudden drop of over $1 trillion in the E-Mini S&P 500 futures contract market via runaway feedback loop within a set of algorithmic traders
FLOPSfloating-point operations per second
Free BasicsFacebook's plan, via Internet.org, to provide limited free internet services in rural India (and elsewhere in the developing world).Controversy centers on the β€œlimited” nature of the offering, which gives Facebook the power to select or reject individual websites and resources for inclusion.
genetic algorithms
GOFAI"Good Old-Fashioned Artificial Intelligence"
HLMIhuman-level machine intelligence: defined as being able to carry out most human professions at least as well as a typical human
interoperability
Kolmogorov complexity
language translation
linear regression
machine learning
Markov chains
monopoly
NAFTA
natural language processing (NLP)A technology for processing and analyzing words
neofeudalism
net neutralityLegal and regulatory concept maintaining that Internet Service Providers must act as common carriers, allowing businesses and citizens to interoperate with the physical infrastructure of the communications network equally, without being subject to biased or exclusionary activities on the part of the network.
neural networks
netizens
"Online Eraser" law (CA)
patrimonial capitalism
Pegasus
phonemes
predatory lending
predictive analytics
privacy
private eminent domain
probability
prosody
qualia
r > gPiketty's insight
randomness
random walk
recommender systems
recursion
recursive learning
right to be forgottenWhen it became EU law in 2014, this groundbreaking legislation gave citizens the power to demand search engines remove pointers to content about them. It was the growing of a data rights movement in Europe that led later to GDPR.
SciKit
simulation
smart speakers
speech recognition
spyware
statistical modeling
strong vs. weak AI"weak AI" refers to algorithms designed to master a specific narrow domain of knowledge or problem-solving, vs. achieving a more general intelligence (strong AI)
supermajority
supervised learning
surplus data
TensorFlow
Tianhe-2The world's fastest supercomputer, developed in China, until it was surpassed in June 2016 by the also Chinese Sunway TaihuLight
Terms of Service
Twitter
unsupervised learning
WatsonIBM AI that defeats the two all-time greatest human Jeopardy! champions in 2010
WhatsApp
WTO
Zuccotti Park
Read more

speak, sistah!

see also: Shoshanna Zuboff (who wrote the seminal work on surveillance capitalism), Don Norman, Dystopia vs. Utopia Book List: A Fight to the Finish, surveillance capitalism dictionary

Some takeaways:

  • surveillance won’t be obvious and overt like in Orwell’s classic totalitarian novel 1984 — it’ll be covert and subtle (“more like a spider’s web”)
  • social networks use persuasion architecture — the same cloying design aesthetic that puts gum at the eye level of children in the grocery aisle

Example:

AI modeling of potential Las Vegas ticket buyers

The machine learning algorithms can classify people into two buckets, “likely to buy tickets to Vegas” and “unlikely to” based on exposure to lots and lots of data patterns. Problem being, it’s a black box and no one — not even the computer scientists — know how it works or what it’s doing exactly.

So the AI may have discovered that bipolar individuals just about to go into mania are more susceptible to buying tickets to Vegas — and that is the segment of the population they are targeting: a vulnerable set of people prone to overspending and gambling addictions. The ethical implications of unleashing this on the world — and routinely using and optimizing it relentlessly — are staggering.

Profiting from extremism

“You’re never hardcore enough for YouTube” — YouTube gives you content recommendations that are increasingly polarized and polarizing, because it turns out that preying on your reptilian brain makes you keep clicking around in the YouTube hamster wheel.

The amorality of AI — “algorithms don’t care if they’re selling shoes, or politics.” Our social, political, and cultural flows are being organized by these persuasion architectures — organized for profit; not for the collective good, not for public interests, not subject to our political will anymore. These powerful surveillance capitalism tools are running mostly unchecked, with little oversight and with few people minding the ethics of the stores of essentially a cadre of Silicon Valley billionaires.

Intent doesn’t matter — good intentions aren’t enough; it’s the structure and business models that matter. Facebook isn’t a half trillion dollar con: its value is in its highly effective persuasion power, which is highly troubling and concerning in a supposedly democratic society. Mark Zuckerberg may even ultimately mean well (…debatable), but it doesn’t excuse the railroading over numerous obviously negative externalities resulting from the unchecked power of Facebook in not only the U.S., but in countries around the world including highly volatile domains.

Extremism benefits demagogues — Oppressive regimes both come to power by and benefit from political extremism; from whipping up citizens into a frenzy, often against each other as much as against perceived external or internal enemies. Our data and attention are now for sale to the highest bidding authoritarians and demagogues around the world — enabling them to use AI against us in election after election and PR campaign after PR campaign. We gave foreign dictators even greater powers to influence and persuade us in ways that benefit them at the expense of our own self-interest.

Read more

When usability pioneers have All the Feels about the nature of our creeping technological dystopia, how we got here, and what we might need to do to right the ship, it’s wise to pay attention. Don Norman’s preaching resonated with my choir, and they’ve asked me to sing a summary song of our people in bulleted list format:

  • What seemed like a virtuous thing at the time — building the internet with an ethos of trust and openness — has led to a travesty via lack of security, because no one took bad actors into account.
  • Google, Facebook, et al didn’t have the advertising business model in mind a priori, but sort of stumbled into it and got carried away giving advertisers what they wanted — more information about users — without really taking into consideration the boundary violations of appropriating people’s information. (see Shoshana Zuboff’s definitive new book on Surveillance Capitalism for a lot more on this topic)
  • Tech companies have mined the psychological sciences for techniques that — especially at scale — border on mass manipulation of fundamental human drives to be informed and to belong. Beyond the creepy Orwellian slant of information appropriation and emotional manipulation, the loss of productivity and mental focus from years of constant interruptions takes a toll on society at large.
  • We sign an interminable series of EULAs, ToS’s and other lengthy legalese-ridden agreements just to access the now basic utilities that enable our lives. Experts refer to these as “contracts of adhesion” or “click-wrap,” as a way of connoting the “obvious lack of meaningful consent.” (Zuboff)
  • The “bubble effect” — the internet allows one to surround oneself completely with like-minded opinions and avoid ever being exposed to alternative points of view. This has existential implications for being able to inhabit a shared reality, as well as a deleterious effect on public discourse, civility, and the democratic process itself.
  • The extreme commercialization of almost all of our information sources is problematic, especially in the age of the “Milton Friedman-ification” of the economic world and the skewing of values away from communities and individuals, towards a myopic view of shareholder value and all the attendant perverse incentives that accompany this philosophical business shift over the past 50 years. He notes that the original public-spiritedness of new communication technologies has historically been co-opted by corporate lobbyists via regulatory capture — a subject Tim Wu explores in-depth in his excellent 2011 book, “The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires.“

Is it all bleak, Don?! His answer is clear: “yes, maybe, no.” He demurs on positing a definitive answer to all of these issues, but he doesn’t really mince words about a “hunch” that it may in fact involve burning it all down and starting over again.

Pointing to evolution, Norman notes that we cannot eke radical innovation out of incremental changes — and that when radical change does happen it is often imposed unexpectedly from the outside in the form of catastrophic events. Perhaps if we can’t manage to Marie Kondo our way to a more joyful internet, we’ll have to pray for Armageddon soon…?! 😱

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCEeAn6_QJo
Read more

Anger is the defining emotion of the internet.

It’s designed to whip you up into a frenzy in order to foment cheap pageviews. Its interest is in you becoming a histrionic attention whore, such that you suck in as much clandestinely stolen user data to your platform of choice as possible. Turns out, conflict gets attention.

Anger is also notably the “loophole” emotion — it’s the invisible one men get to have, while claiming for generations upon generations that “women are too emotional to be entrusted” with leadership or anything meaningful, really. Meanwhile male anger and aggression have killed hundreds of millions and wreaked destruction upon the earth many times over, as fragile masculinity is repeatably and predictably triggered over any little old thing.

A neat trick.

A story.

A lie.

Read more

Peter Thiel at Isengaard looking into the Palantir

Peter Thiel and Palmer Luckey are a particularly toxic breed of billionaire welfare queen, who outwardly revile government with every chance they get while having both sucked at its teat to make their fortunes, and currently making a luxe living on taxpayer largesse.

Thiel’s Paypal and Facebook-induced riches rode the coattails of the DARPA-created internet, while Luckey had his exit to internet giant Facebook. Now Thiel helms creepy-AF data mining company Palantir, whose tentacles are wrapped all the way around the intelligence community’s various agencies, while Luckey’s Thiel-funded startup Anduril is bidding for lucrative defense contracts to build Trump’s border wall. It’s the stuff of full-on right-wing neocon wet dreams for both men.

They follow in a long line of right-wing denialism in which Austrian School econ acolytes (and trickle down aficionados) have claimed to be self-made men while reaping untold rewards from lucrative military contracts and other sources of government funding or R&D windfall. Barry Goldwater once famously invoked the mythology of the independent cowboy to describe his successful rise (as would union man Ronald Reagan years later) — when in reality he inherited the family department store business that itself became viable only due to the public money pouring in to nearby military installations springing up in Arizona since as far back as the Civil War.

Even without the American government as their businesses’ largest client, the Libertarian ideal of disproportionately enjoying the fruits of public goods while viciously fighting against the taxation required to pay for them puts the lie to these mens’ claims of Ayn Randian moral supremacy. The ritual flogging of so-called “Great Man Theory” animates all sorts of dangerous social projects such as the world’s richest man purchasing the de facto town square and turning it into a right-wing plaything.

If we’re lucky, Luckey will create some sort of VR seasteading community that sucks the Silicon Valley Supremacists right in and traps them in a sort of Libertarian Matrix forever.

More on Peter Thiel and his right-wing political network:

  • Buddies with right-wing Silicon Valley venture capitalist David Sacks
  • Member of the PayPal Mafia
  • Funded successful Ohio Senator JD Vance‘s campaign
  • Funded loser Blake Masters’ Senatorial campaign in Arizona in 2022
Read more

While multiple formal investigations against the Trump family and administration continue to unfold, and Drumpf supporters weirdly deny the probable cause for concern, Putin’s troll army continues to operate out in the open on Twitter, Facebook, Medium, and other social media networks. The sheer scale of this operation started to become clear to me in the months leading up to Election 2016, having both spent a lot of time on social media both professionally and personally for over a decade as well as a hefty amount of time on political investigation during this presidential cycle: bots on Twitter had taken over.

Whatever your thoughts on the #RussiaGate corruption scandal may be, it should concern any citizen that an enormous group of bad actors is working together to infiltrate American social media, with a specific intent to sway politics. Media literacy is one part of the answer, but we’re going to need new tools to help us identify accounts that are only present in bad faith to political discourse: they are not who they claim to be, and their real goals are kept carefully opaque.

Cold War 2.0

We should consider our nation embroiled in a large international game of psychological warfare, or PsyOps as it is referred to in intelligence circles. The goal is to sow disinformation as widely as possible, such that it becomes very difficult to discern what separates truth from propaganda. A secondary goal is to sow dissent among the citizenry, particularly to rile up the extremist factions within America’s two dominant political parties in an attempt to pull the political sphere apart from the center. 

We didn’t really need much help in that department as it is, with deep partisan fault lines having been open as gaping wounds on the American political landscape for some decades now — so the dramatically escalated troll army operation has acted as an intense catalyst for further igniting the power kegs being stored up between conservatives and progressives in this country.

Luckily there are some ways to help defray the opposition’s ability to distract and spread disinfo by identifying the signatures given off by suspicious accounts. I’ve developed a few ways to evaluate whether a given account may be a participant in paid propaganda, or at least is likely to be misrepresenting who they say they are, and what their agenda is. 

Sometimes it’s fun to get embroiled in a heated “tweetoff,” but I’ve noticed how easy it is to feel “triggered” by something someone says online and how the opposition is effectively “hacking” that tendency to drag well-meaning people into pointless back-and-forths designed not to defend a point of view, but simply to waste an activist’s time, demoralize them, and occupy the focus — a focus that could be better spent elsewhere on Real Politics with real citizens who in some way care about their country and their lives.

Bots on Twitter have “Tells”

1) Hyper-patriotism

– Conspicuously hyper-patriotic bio (and often, name)Β  – Posts predominantly anti-Democrat, anti-liberal/libtard, anti-Clinton, anti-Sanders, anti-antifa etc. memes:

2) Hyper-Christianity

– Conspicuously hyper-Christian in bio and/or name of bots on Twitter: 

3) Abnormally high tweet volume

Seems to tweet &/or RT constantly without breaks — supporting evidence of use of a scheduler tool at minimum, and displaying obviously automated responses from some accounts. The above account, for example, started less than 2 years ago, has tweeted 15,000 more times than I have in over 10 years of frequent use (28K). Most normal people don’t schedule their tweets — but marketers and PR people do.

4) Posts only about politics and one other thing (usually a sport)

– Posts exclusively about politics and potentially one other primary “normie” topic, which is often a sport – May proclaim to be staunchly not “politically correct”:

5) Hates Twitter Lists

– Bots on Twitter have a strange aversion to being added to Lists, or making Lists of their own:

6) Overuse of hashtags 

– Uses hashtags more than normal, non-marketing people usually do:

7) Pushes a one-dimensional message

– Seems ultimately too one-dimensional and predictable to reflect a real personality, and/or too vaguely similar to the formula:

8) Redundant tweets

– Most obviously of all, it retweets the same thing over and over again:

9) Rehashes a familiar set of memes

– Tweets predominantly about a predictable set of memes:

Mismatched location and time zone is another “tell” — and although you can’t get the second piece of data from the public profile, it is available from the Twitter API. If you know Python and/or feel adventurous, I’m sharing an earlier version of the above tool on Github (and need to get around to pushing the latest version…) — and if you know of any other “tells” please share by commenting or tweeting at me. Next bits I want to work on include:

  • Examining follower & followed networks against a matchlist of usual suspect accounts
  • Looking at percentage of Cyrillic characters in use
  • Graphing tweet volume over time to identify “bot” and “cyborg” periods
  • Looking at “burst velocity” of opposition tweets as bot networks are engaged to boost messages
  • Digging deeper into the overlap between the far-right and far-left as similar memes are implanted and travel through both “sides” of the networks
Read more