In recent years, federal monitors, private companies, and nonprofit watchdogs have developed working relationships to identify, warn of, and mitigate election disinformation that emanates from foreign sources. That tissue may have atrophied, says a report from the government technology-focused publication Nextgov:
State officials say they are receiving fewer election-specific federal briefings than in previous cycles, while others who track foreign influence have observed routine exchanges with government and technology companies fall away. Some also note that federal workforce departures have weakened cooperation with outside partners, including social media platforms, to track false information online.
While the federal government continues to gather intelligence on foreign election threats, some of those who lean on those findings say it has become less reliable in sharing information with non-federal researchers and state officials responsible for countering those campaigns. That cooperation began to weaken before President Donald Trump returned to office, and his administration has since dismantled several programs dedicated to countering the problem.
One other excerpt worth highlighting: “An office can retain its responsibilities while losing the relationships that helped it do the work, according to a person familiar with U.S. efforts to address influence operations. But someone who once knew exactly whom to call may find that their counterpart has departed, or that the people still there are unsure whether leadership supports exchanging information.”
Consider two ways of evaluating the “war” for our attention on social media, particularly around Election Day, when rumors and random reports of misbehavior and controversies fly about. One is that it’s between good domestic guys and bad domestic guys, i.e., the political party/ideological movement you like and the one you don’t. Another is that it’s between foreign malefactors and just us — just the Stars ‘n Stripes. This story is about the second.
Foreign operators try and know, with at least some effectiveness, that they can leverage the “fog of war” in an instantly updating online environment to confuse us and turn us against each other. The partnerships described by Nextgov are intended to mitigate those effects. If those partnerships are weaker, it becomes all the more important for social media users to resist snap judgments about shocking claims, for the sake of — seriously — national unity.