Response required?

You asked me when and how to respond to disinformation and online toxicity. Some of the experts who inform my thinking offer their insights.

Mar 24, 2024

I’m often asked when and how to respond to disinformation, hate, and other forms of online toxicity. By now most folks recognize that fact-checking doesn’t work but there’s less clarity on what does. Should you call out toxicity or employ strategic silence? How do you balance making your opponent own their rhetoric without further amplifying it?

My answer is always: it depends. With clients, I encourage organizations to draft a rubric for response. Something that helps determine how widely something has spread and how much potential harm it could cause. Organizations can use the rubric to determine if a response is necessary and tailor it based on the potential reach and harm. But for individuals talking to voters or even just friends and family, it’s a different calculation. Most folks won’t develop a rubric for use in their personal conversations and have to play it by ear.

To answer the question and help folks think through this, I thought I’d turn to the people whose expertise I rely on when I have these same questions. So, I asked colleagues that I respect and admire for their thoughts, and included their responses below with minimal editing from me. Since we’re in an election year, most of the experts I consulted work in politics or advocacy, but even if you’re doing voter engagement, there’s wisdom in these responses.

***

If there's one thing I've learned from the study of how disinformation impacts the Latino electorate, it's that to chase or amplify false narratives is futile. People who traffic in disinformation seek to profit from the erosion of institutional trust. Once they've succeeded, or when to try is no longer profitable, they move on to the next falsehood.
When we repeat false narratives in an effort to refute election disinformation, we not only amplify bad information but also help to sow distrust in the electoral process. A far more effective approach is for election administrators and advocacy organizations to focus their limited resources on establishing themselves as credible sources of factual information in the communities they serve.
It is not feasible for election administrators to counter every false narrative or spot every AI-generated deep fake, but they can establish themselves as the definitive source of election information in their jurisdiction. Laws, not conspiracy theories, dictate how election officials operate, and they can leverage traditional and social media to educate the public about the statutes that govern processes like ballot curing, voting system tests, and audits.
Journalists have a responsibility to report on the presence of disinformation, but they can help to limit its reach by not ceding their platforms to specific conspiracies. There is no upside to printing wild theories about perceived faults in election processes, for instance, when journalists could instead amplify how state laws dictate those procedures.
I am not calling for a head-in-the-sand approach to false narratives. What I am advocating is that it’s possible to acknowledge the existence of disinformation without amplifying specific narratives. A clear understanding of who voters can trust to deliver truthful election information will be far more valuable to them than to play a never-ending game of disinformation Whack-A-Mole.

-Liz Lebrón, Founder & President, Blue Nexus Group

The history of reporting on abortion offers a case study in what happens when the media insists on sticking to an ‘equal time’ framework, positioning respected scientific facts and medical consensus against lies and disproven opinions as if they each carried equal weight. For decades, journalists have given enormous air time to hate-based disinformation about our bodies, pregnancy, abortion, contraception, fertility treatment, and how they all work. When we look at what Donald Trump did with the big lie—repeating false claims about the election, counting on the media to spread those inflammatory claims, and essentially recruiting violent actors to ‘rectify’ those lies—we see the same pattern that has occurred with anti-abortion disinformation and the promotion of anti-abortion terrorism.

-Erin Matson, Co-Founder, President & CEO, Reproaction, x.com/reproaction

I'm not opposed to "Strategic Silence,'' and it has its place as a tactic against hateful ideologies, but I'd rather see a conversation with nuance, context, history, thoughtful question asking, and an acceptance of complexity over the social media soundbite. While very few Americans identify as members of a bigoted social movement like white nationalism, many Americans agree with one or more of the tenets of said movements. These are dark days for our democracy and dark days for many Americans. The light comes when we can have real conversations about where we are and why and when we can offer people tangible action steps to strengthen their communities against hate.

-Jessica Acee, Senior Fellow, Western States Center, Author, Confronting White Nationalism in Schools

I thought about this question a bit a month ago, when Chaya Raichik sat for an interview with Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz. The site of the interview was a cafe a short drive from my home, where I’ve stopped from time to time.
The decision by Lorenz to post video of the interview met with loud complaints, some accusing Lorenz of platforming Raichik’s hate speech. That rang false to me. Raichik — as her social-media infamy proves, and the bomb threats that can follow her posts underscore — has platforms. What reporting provides, when done with proper caution, is scrutiny.
As we can witness through the increasingly casual use of ‘Great Replacement’ talk by Republican officials and on right-wing media platforms, hateful ideologies will likely sit near center stage for the duration of the 2024 campaigns. Specific incitement and threats require handling with care. The fact of hatred and disinformation providing a driving force for Republican candidates, however, deserves and requires scrutiny — not media silence.

-Greg Greene, Digital Storyteller, Writer/Editor, Researcher, Advocate

It's critical to remember that today's right-wing is virtually impervious to shame. In the past, candidates like George Allen or Todd Akin lost in large part because shame was still an effective weapon. Trump taught Republicans that their base wants a bully and will reward anything that can be perceived as "owning the libs." Even more important, he taught them to double down, not back down.
With that in mind, there are a few questions I typically try to answer before I engage. First, can I make someone pay a political, economic or social price for spreading hate or lies? Second, if so, who can extract those costs? Look for the opportunities to put others on the spot—that might be more powerful Republicans who want to appear "reasonable" (some of those do still exist) and can be forced to denounce a colleague. It might be corporate donors to Republican PACs that don't want their brands to be associated with conspiracy theories. Think through who—other than the central target—you can make squirm. Third, I ask how I can do it without giving the impression that I've been "owned" or "triggered."
Use mockery and disgust, but try to avoid the appearance of outrage. If you use disgust, try to present it as something that makes you physically gag, rather than intellectual disgust. Think of the many GIFs of people throwing up in their mouths, and channel that energy (or just use the GIF!). Mockery is incredibly effective because the authoritarian right thrives on the impression of strength. Their bubble bursts when we turn them into a laughingstock. If you can make the perpetrator into a joke, you rob them of their perceived power. Finally, avoid giving the perpetrator any algorithmic benefit. Don't Quote Tweet. Don't go into the replies. Take a screenshot and drag them as hard as you can, but don't give them a boost in the algorithm.

-Evan Sutton, Founder, Firekit Campaigns, @3vanSutton (Twitter), @evansutton.bsky.social (Bluesky)

I carry the perspective of a woman who has held elected office in an executive position. Most of my elected life, I thought addressing sexism head on would be a problem—that people would say i was overreacting or deflecting. The times I did call it out were powerful and important, however. The research of the Barbara Lee Foundation shows that if women leaders don’t address the attacks against us there is also blowback—voters want to see that we are strong and have backbone. The double bind is real, but the negative sanctions for addressing sexism are not as stringent as we are told.
My main work is with my sibling white people, particularly white people who believe racism exists and think it’s bad. When it comes to the work of organizing and policy change, I focus my energies where there is fertile ground. When it comes to information and countering disinformation, however, our temptation to argue and attack first is not useful. When we conflate the systemic conditioning of whiteness with the red beating heart of white people themselves, we have lost the conversation before it has begun. No one likes being criticized or held accountable in general, but certainly not when our full humanity has not been acknowledged. We have to start with the person, even if their behaviors and social conditioning are such that the person inside is almost entirely occluded. It is not an act of love to leave people stewing in lies, but it’s also not an act of love to attack the lies. To that person, the lies and their sense of personhood are likely intertwined, so to attack the lie feels like an existential attack.

-Betsy Hodges, Speaker | Writer | Advisor, Former Mayor, Minneapolis, MN

On social media, I'm afraid we've lost any hope of strategic silence having much effect.
Henry Ford Jr., building his own Great Replacement Machine, h,as broken Twitter as a hive mind for writers, activists, and journalism in general. Meta doesn't want politics. TikTok's algorithm is beyond the strategic plotting of most people who didn't grow up into it.
That said, I think being strategically silent is a good general disposition.
I try to have two guidelines when sharing any toxic information:
1. Retweet your friends and, if you must, copy and paste the fiends.
Microchip, one of the key pro-Trump trolls in 2016, described his method of "ideological disruption" as "psychological loldongs terrorism.” You can't really spread psychological terrorism without spreading it. So when you do spread it, do your best to avoid virality with cut and paste images, the worse quality the better. Cross out the lies and hate if you can. Because neo-nazis and their ilk are literally profiting off engagement.
2. Know why you're sharing.
I've realized that mockery of the right for its own sake isn't all that helpful. So I try to constantly remind myself that even jokes have to have a point. Exposing the playbook, the backers, the connections to "establishment" power would all count as "a point." But I've decided that just pointing out someone bad said something bad helps normalize and baste the public in bad things.

-Jason Sattler, @LOLGOP, www.erlywrm.com

I will never forget when my then-boss walked across the street to go speak to the Westboro Baptist protest area after a big Nuns on the Bus event in 2015. I was nervous about physical safety, but I also figured that nothing good could come of encountering them. One month later, The New Yorker published a feature of Megan Phelps-Roper and how interactions on Twitter helped her leave Westboro. Years later, I still think about that pairing of moments.

A problem I face in my line of work is that the people who most need to be quarantined are also very conveniently positioned as the leaders, even when their views differ significantly from the people they allegedly lead. They command a tremendous amount of attention. That means that I don’t have the luxury of strategic silence. Instead, the organizations I’ve represented have to more commonly be bold and outspoken in our actions — risking our own digital safety, mental health, and work-life balance — to break through and offer a perspective different than our so-called leaders. But what I would give to have the media, or even progressive thought leaders with a larger social media following, employ some much-needed strategic silence with these “Religious Right” prelates and lend a bit of attention to progressive faith groups!
In 2024, I highly doubt that digital relationships have the potential to create large-scale change that we perhaps saw a glimmer of with Megan Phelps-Roper. For pro-choice, progressive Catholics like me, way more is gained by speaking out against our leaders so that others who have been bullied into silence know they are not alone. It is soul-sucking and energy-sucking to balance which trolls to respond to and to ignore, but sometimes it can also feel really badass.

-Ashley Wilson, Strategic Communications Advisor at Catholics for Choice, @APdubs

People want black-and-white rules to tell when it's time to stay silent and when it's time to amplify, but sadly, there's a lot of gray areas. The biggest thing we must grapple with is how tempting it can be to share radicalizing content, even if we are criticizing it, in order to get attention for ourselves. I try to avoid reposting social media content for this reason, and limit myself to using this stuff only as examples inside journalistic work that frames it for what it is for an audience. Also, I avoid amplifying anything that is an attempt to intimidate or threaten individuals.

-Amanda Marcotte, Senior Politics Writer and editor of Standing Room Only, Salon

In the digital era, calculating when silence is strategic is much different than it used to be. When half of Americans consume news on social media and only 8% from newspapers, silence often does less to deny an insidious view oxygen than to deny a counternarrative.
We’ve seen this time and again in recent years with whack-job conspiracy theories that didn’t deserve airtime. Qanon went largely ignored until its disciples got elected to Congress. Pizzagate was relegated to the weirdest corners of cyberspace until one believer shot up a pizza joint. How many batshit tales of dark web fucklore and snake oil were deemed unnewsworthy until the previous president spouted them off and started getting his fans killed?
That’s not to say every hair-brained theory deserves reporting, but it proves that what once passed for strategic silence is often just silence. Hate doesn’t need your oxygen when it’s in abundant supply.
Strategic silence still has a place. If declining a debate with a Klansman means no debate, that’s strategic. Silence is better than repeating the hate without debunking it; and giving a hater platform to spew bigotry.
In 2024, silence can only be strategic as part of a larger arsenal. Hate spreads like wildfire — fast, aggressive, permanently devastating. Combatting it means being faster, no less aggressive, and preventative.
At atAdvocacy, we work with hundreds of compassionate, values-driven content creators who combat hate speech every day. While their silence would do nothing to stop the spread, their diligent work guarantees lies cannot fester unanswered. In this new world of unfiltered info, misinfo, and disinfo organizing these powerful voices to maximize their impact seems the most strategic approach. Each individual creator has power, but together, they are a force.
And most of them would tell you that silence is complicity.

-Stuart Perelmuter, Founder/CEO, AtAdvocacy

Deciding when and how to respond to the opposition should proceed from this point of departure: What do you wish people believed and, subsequently, what do want or need them to do?
If, to take a simple example, you need them to get vaccinated, then remaining silent in the face of anti-vaxx propaganda is impossible. But, rather than directly refute it - e.g. “vaccines do not cause autism,” thus unwittingly lending credence to the claim, you want to instead replace the disinformation with the truth. In this case, “vaccines are proven safe and effective.”
If, instead, you need them to believe in the credibility of some institution or process and feel empowered to act, it will require a nuanced analysis to consider what merits a response. Often, in an earnest attempt to get folks to note and take seriously the unhinged propaganda of our opponents, we don't merely amplify these lies, we dissuade folks from wanting to engage in collective action. We unintentionally fuel the “everything is awful, nothing can be believed” feeling that fuels sit-it-out cynicism we can’t afford. This is especially true when we amplify the overarching idea that “disinformation is proliferating,” without attributing this perfidy to specific sources and calling out their motivations: to fuel hate, spread fear, sow division and create distractions in order to advance their agenda to control and decide our futures for us.

-Anat Shenker-Osorio, Principal of ASO Communications, Host of Words to Win By Podcast

As someone who has been covering right-wing extremism and misinformation for years, the most important things I consider when deciding whether or not to report or share something are if harmful content has spread enough to warrant amplification or if it’s a concerning trend or narrative that warrants sounding the alarm early, especially if an emerging strand of extremism or misinformation seems to have derived from an established trend or narrative that has already had dangerous consequences.
While amplification of this type of extremism and misinformation into the mainstream is ultimately the goal for many far-right figures, there is a benefit to counteracting these narratives and warped world views before they can spread too far and cause harm. I think that the QAnon conspiracy theory is a really good example of this. I was someone who was covering the dangers of the movement early on, while many others didn’t take it seriously until it was too late – and we saw the real world effects that this dangerous movement has caused.

-Alex Kaplan, Senior Researcher, Media Matters

ICYMI

Vilify, Ridicule, Disinform: Political Communication and Media Trust in the Age of Generative AI (Institute for Strategic Dialogue)

I really like this overview of how AI impacts politics and media in this massive year for global elections. The glossary alone is worth bookmarking because you’re going to see these terms pop up frequently in research and news coverage.

Meta Kills a Powerful Transparency Tool Ahead of Election Day (FWIW)

From my Courier colleague Kyle Tharp. We’ve known for some time that Meta was going to kill CrowdTangle but this gives a good overview of how that will impact social media research.

The Viral ‘Bloodbath’ Clip and the Rise of the Liberal Video Influencer (Semafor)

Good stuff from Dave Weigel. Personally, I’m just thrilled to see how far working with online influencers has come since I was working on political campaigns. It’s a completely different world now.

A Conspiracy Theory Goes to the Supreme Court: How Did Murthy v Missouri Get This Far? (Just Security)

A good resource for anyone following Murthy, which reached SCOTUS with oral arguments this week. I haven't written as much about the case, mostly because my legal knowledge is thin and so many others (like Just Security) cover it better. It’s worth remembering that this court case is part of a broader effort to destroy the election integrity infrastructure that advocates and policymakers have worked to build over the past several years. Our opponents have deep pockets, levers of power, and no scruples.

Want more reads? I still post weekly for my patrons with even more ICYMI links.

Coda

Wired included my piece about Kate Middleton conspiracy theories in the inaugural issue of the Politics Lab newsletter. Congratulations to Wired’s senior writer Makena Kelly on the launch. I’m glad to see more political tech coverage, especially in such a crucial election year.

Let me know if you enjoyed this week’s newsletter and what other questions you’d like me to ask experts. Between now and the election, I’d like to do a couple more of these. And if you’re an expert that I should be talking to or whose work I should be reading let me know that too! You can reply directly to this email. I read every message and respond t most.

That’s all for now. I’ll see you again next Sunday!

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?