Authors:
(1) Filipo Sharevski, Depaul University;;
(2) Benjamin Kessell, Depaul University.
Table
Summary and introduction
2 Internet -activism and social media
2.1 Hashtag activism
2.2 Hackktivism
3 Internet -activism and disinformation
3.1 Desinformation operations of grassroots level
3.2 misinformation of mainstream
4 Hackktivism and disinformation
4.1 Research Questions and 4.2 Sample
4.3 Methods and instruments
4.4 Profiles of Hackivists
5 Conceptualization of false information and 5.1 predecessor for misinformation
5.2 Mental false information models
6 Desinformation Active contradiction and 6.1 leakage, doxing and deplatforming
6.2 Missin Information “OPS”
7 Evolution and 7.1 Tactics of Response Information and 7.1
7.2 Literacy of disinformation
7.3 False Information Hackktivism
8 Discussion
8.1 Consequences
8.2 ethical considerations
8.3 Restrictions and 8.4 future work
9 conclusion and references
7 Development of misinformation
Since the cost of spreading the disinformation is practically not [85]It is unlikely that web -based discourse will soon be eliminated by alternative narratives. If this gloomy prediction finally realizes [78] or the Internet improves as new technologies complement the public's ability to assess the quality and correctness of content [4]remains an open topic. However, as Hackivists are stakeholders in solving this topic, our third research question was the purpose of our prophecy to bring their prediction to how web spaces can be used in the near future with trolls, memes and lies.
7.1 Counter-Misin Information Tactics
Hackivists in our sample position it unanimously “Social media platforms are difficult to keep up with removing it, so helpful people are critical [P13] to maintain a healthy discourse. Mobilization “Justice and Truth as a Reason” [P15] It is important not only to curb disinformation “Withdrawal of information from political waiting” [P1]To. Assist “Reveal the disinformation of charlatans” [P4]HACTIVists call for a guide to keeping up in which “No leakage, doxing or exposure should be caused by anyone else (physical, reputation, mental)” [P3]To.
To begin with, P3 suggests that we should “Stop the treatment of disinformation as freedom of expression.” Since malfunctions usually use this cover for very aggressive operation in social media, the next step is “Identify what is their weakness and what triggers them – reducing or provocation?” [P14]To. If misconceptions have an unreasonable spread, then “Osint's revealing, doxing and putting their true faces” [P15] It is the right place not only in normal social media, but also in bottom platforms, forums and everywhere on the Internet. If theych for a provocation then “Horchestrated saturation” [P5] could work better “Seatposts, absurd trolling and ridiculing memes” [P18]To. Hackivists note here, vital a priori away from a “Political Whatabouter” [P14] and avoid “Meeting as a censorship, disagreement, canceling that can only cause arguments or dismissal” [P5]To.
Some hackivists were of the opinion that “Doxing won't hack on itself anymore because you can easily fake things and documents by credit card nowadays” [P1]To. One possible tactics offered P1was “Find the use of your platforms, vulnerability, and step by step revealing the way of trolling amateurs, using robots, and feeding your think tanks to get credibility behind their propaganda.” Another tactics that have been proposed P2was “Doxing in order for advertisers to support known misinformers, such as Andy MTO.” By providing more hybrid hackktivist tactics, P4 suggested “The hidden but coordinated psychological warfare where psychologists tear these people scattered seriously to find the accusations of leakage to them, and even pay for billboards and radio advertising to publicly shame them.” These lines, P11 even suggested that the book be thrown to them, Their targeting with a social engineer attack and trying to damage pieces of their main infrastructure would be their servers, internet connection or bot mandates. ”
7.2 Literacy of disinformation
In our sample hackivists reflect a sentiment's susceptibility to the false information found in scientific literature: laziness to control facts [P2] [89]resistance to authoritative suggestions [P7] [57]loyalty [P13] [120]and simple ignorance [P16] [17]To. As people who use activities, Hackivists are responsible for proposing opportunities to deal with this susceptibility. In the P5 view “False information must be seen as something that is all monitored, not just one group on the left or right,” A “False Information Social Agreement” [136] Requires such interventions like “Critical thinking curriculum in schools” [P18]To do, “Teaching Opsec skills hacking with social responsibility and rising” [P5]and “Forcing professional communication standards on platforms” [P16]To.
Because Hackivists have little control over these interventions, they were happy to help develop “Real robots for” outstanding “with misinformation robots” If something that could add the practice of leaks, doxization and exposure [P13]To. They acknowledged that these truth -spreading robots must help ordinary users find and find facts better because the information lettering is most effective in scattering the wrongs [55]To. Hackivist Reiter ate that platforms have to shoot “False information float in social media and make robots visible so that they change with factual information” demonstrate to ordinary users how to help themselves [P14]To.
Regardless of whether these views are realistic or not, the hackivists in our sample believe that the current approach to increasing disinformation literacy is ineffective as it does not indicate an indication “Impartial attitude” [P7] In the wrong one for social media users. Instead of an educational and respectable tone “Rather infused” Cancel Culture “or” Your opinion is the wrong “tone” [P3] Each attempt is made to help people navigate and find facts. The rejection of disinformation as a result of disinformation literacy must be an agreement “Scientific facts have no political qualities, even if social media platforms make” [P5]To.
7.3 False Information Hackktivism
The participants in our sample recognize that they were organized disinformation hackktivismBarban's individual cases that meet misunderstanders are largely lacking in social media. In order for hacktivists to take disinformation as a worthy activity, the conflict between the past is “hacking for political reasons” and [58] Future “hacking against the use of false use in promoting political reasons” [22] must be resolved. While this conflict is complex and evolving, many hackivists were concerned that it could still create a “Distribution between Hackivists on Political Lines” [P2]To.
As a relative threat of false information activism, one participant mentioned the hackivists' picture of hijacking for self -advertising, eg “Some like to portray themselves when we woke up the web gods with zero devil” [P12]To. Another threat is temptation to use misinformation against disinformation, such as campaign #opjan [P10]To. While this strategy is true “With a fight-fire” A approach, it can prevent a situation where staying in hackktivist ethics is secondary to expressing social and political angle in social media [79]To. In addition, it could be argued that this conflict itself may be difficult to solve as external propaganda in a copy of the disinformation, because even if hackivists are “Hacking of the homeland,” Nevertheless they do it under political conditions [26]To.
