Understanding information disorder
The term ‘fake news’ doesn’t begin to cover all of this. Most of this content isn’t even fake; it’s often
genuine, used out of context and weaponized by people who know that falsehoods based on a kernel
of truth are more likely to be believed and shared. And most of this can’t be described as ‘news’. It’s
good old-fashioned rumors, it’s memes, it’s manipulated videos and hyper-targeted ‘dark ads’ and
old photos re-shared as new. The term ‘fake news’ is now almost meaningless with audiences
increasingly connecting it with established news outlets such as CNN and the BBC.
At First Draft, we advocate using the terms that are most appropriate for the type of content;
whether that’s propaganda, lies, conspiracies, rumors, hoaxes, hyperpartisan content, falsehoods or
manipulated media. We also prefer to use the terms disinformation, misinformation or
malinformation. Collectively, we call it information disorder.
Disinformation is content that is intentionally false and designed to cause harm. It is motivated by
three distinct factors: to make money; to have political influence, either foreign or domestic; or to
cause trouble for the sake of it.
When disinformation is shared it often turns into misinformation. Misinformation also describes
false content but the person sharing doesn’t realise that it is false or misleading. Often a piece of
disinformation is picked up by someone who doesn’t realise it’s false, and shares it with their
networks, believing that they are helping.
The third category we use is malinformation. The term describes genuine information that is shared
with an intent to cause harm. An example of this is when Russian agents hacked into emails from the
Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign and leaked certain details to the
public to damage reputations. (authentieke informatie met een kwaadaardig doeleinde)
This evolution is also partly a response to the search and social companies becoming far tougher on
attempts to manipulate their mass audiences. As they have tightened up their ability to shut down
fake accounts and changed their policies to be far more aggressive against fake content (for example
Facebook via its Third Party Fact-Checking Project2), agents of disinformation have learned that using
genuine content — reframed in new and misleading ways — is less likely to get picked up by AI
systems. In some cases such material is deemed ineligible for fact-checking.
Within these three overarching types of information disorder, we also refer frequently to seven
categories, as we find that it helps people to understand the complexity of this ecosystem. In
following chapters the writer will explain each in detail and provide examples that underline how
damaging information disorder can be.
Satire or parody – No intention to cause harm but has potential to fool.
The reason that satire used in this way is so powerful a tool is that often the first people to see the
satire often understand it as such. But as it gets re-shared more people lose the connection to the
original messenger and fail to understand it as satire.
On social media, the heuristics (the mental shortcuts we use to make sense of the world) are missing.
Unlike in a newspaper where you understand what section of the paper you are looking at and see
visual cues which show you’re in the opinion section or the cartoon section, this isn’t the case online.
The term ‘fake news’ doesn’t begin to cover all of this. Most of this content isn’t even fake; it’s often
genuine, used out of context and weaponized by people who know that falsehoods based on a kernel
of truth are more likely to be believed and shared. And most of this can’t be described as ‘news’. It’s
good old-fashioned rumors, it’s memes, it’s manipulated videos and hyper-targeted ‘dark ads’ and
old photos re-shared as new. The term ‘fake news’ is now almost meaningless with audiences
increasingly connecting it with established news outlets such as CNN and the BBC.
At First Draft, we advocate using the terms that are most appropriate for the type of content;
whether that’s propaganda, lies, conspiracies, rumors, hoaxes, hyperpartisan content, falsehoods or
manipulated media. We also prefer to use the terms disinformation, misinformation or
malinformation. Collectively, we call it information disorder.
Disinformation is content that is intentionally false and designed to cause harm. It is motivated by
three distinct factors: to make money; to have political influence, either foreign or domestic; or to
cause trouble for the sake of it.
When disinformation is shared it often turns into misinformation. Misinformation also describes
false content but the person sharing doesn’t realise that it is false or misleading. Often a piece of
disinformation is picked up by someone who doesn’t realise it’s false, and shares it with their
networks, believing that they are helping.
The third category we use is malinformation. The term describes genuine information that is shared
with an intent to cause harm. An example of this is when Russian agents hacked into emails from the
Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign and leaked certain details to the
public to damage reputations. (authentieke informatie met een kwaadaardig doeleinde)
This evolution is also partly a response to the search and social companies becoming far tougher on
attempts to manipulate their mass audiences. As they have tightened up their ability to shut down
fake accounts and changed their policies to be far more aggressive against fake content (for example
Facebook via its Third Party Fact-Checking Project2), agents of disinformation have learned that using
genuine content — reframed in new and misleading ways — is less likely to get picked up by AI
systems. In some cases such material is deemed ineligible for fact-checking.
Within these three overarching types of information disorder, we also refer frequently to seven
categories, as we find that it helps people to understand the complexity of this ecosystem. In
following chapters the writer will explain each in detail and provide examples that underline how
damaging information disorder can be.
Satire or parody – No intention to cause harm but has potential to fool.
The reason that satire used in this way is so powerful a tool is that often the first people to see the
satire often understand it as such. But as it gets re-shared more people lose the connection to the
original messenger and fail to understand it as satire.
On social media, the heuristics (the mental shortcuts we use to make sense of the world) are missing.
Unlike in a newspaper where you understand what section of the paper you are looking at and see
visual cues which show you’re in the opinion section or the cartoon section, this isn’t the case online.
