Purpose: Teach the uncomfortable feedback loops: some “counter” actions amplify the problem.
Output format: Assessment → Confidence (low/med/high) → Next action
[screen 1]
Attention Is the Bloodstream
Here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Truth and lies both travel on attention. Every intervention that draws attention to a problem also distributes the problem.
“Debunking” can boost reach. “Exposing” can create audiences. “Raising awareness” can spread what you’re warning about.
This isn’t a reason to do nothing. It’s a reason to be strategic.
[screen 2]
Symbiosis Isn’t Conspiracy
Some actors in the “counter-disinformation” space benefit from the problem’s persistence.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s incentive alignment.
- Fact-checkers funded per-debunk have incentive for more false claims to check
- Researchers whose careers depend on the problem have incentive for it to continue
- Media covering “the disinformation crisis” needs ongoing crisis
Most of these actors are sincere. But incentives shape behavior regardless of sincerity.
[screen 3]
Politics as Amplifier
A claim becomes consequential when authority points at it — even to condemn it.
The dynamic:
- Fringe narrative exists in obscurity
- Political figure denounces it publicly
- Denunciation is news; narrative gets coverage
- People who never would have encountered it now see it
- Some portion is persuaded
You’ve handed the narrative a microphone while trying to fight it.
[screen 4]
The Conversion Pipeline
Sometimes the path runs: Noise → Agenda → Hearings → Policy
Example pipeline:
- Small conspiracy theory circulates online
- Partisan actors amplify for political advantage
- Media covers the “controversy”
- Politicians hold hearings to “investigate”
- Policy responses legitimize the original framing
The original claim has now been laundered into legitimate discourse.
Not every noise becomes agenda. But some actors actively work this pipeline.
[screen 5]
The Safe Question
Before any response, ask:
Does our action reduce harm or increase distribution?
If the answer is “both” — which it often is — you need to assess the ratio.
A debunk that reaches 10 million people, introducing 8 million to the false claim for the first time, may cause net harm even if it’s factually accurate and well-argued.
[screen 6]
Strategic Silence Exists
Sometimes the best move is: don’t feed it.
Strategic silence means:
- Monitor quietly without public response
- Prepare contingency plans if it spreads
- Let it die in obscurity if it doesn’t grow
- Accept that not everything needs response
This isn’t denial or avoidance. It’s recognizing that attention is fuel.
Strategic silence requires discipline. Most organizations and individuals are biased toward action.
[screen 7]
Write What You Won’t Claim
This one sentence prevents half the disasters:
“What we will not claim is…”
Before going public with any response, write explicitly:
- What we won’t attribute without evidence
- What conclusions we won’t draw
- What certainty we won’t express
- What amplification risk we acknowledge
This creates internal discipline and reduces overreach.
[screen 8]
Stop Rules for Response
Define when you stop:
Stop responding when:
- Timebox reached and harm threshold not met
- Narrative is dying on its own
- Your response risk exceeds remaining harm risk
- Evidence remains too weak for public claim
Don’t stop just because:
- You feel something should be done
- Others are responding (social proof isn’t strategy)
- It feels important (emotional salience isn’t harm assessment)
Have a reason for response. Have a reason for silence too.
[screen 9]
DIM Application
High politics + high optics scenarios:
Gen 4 levers (reduce reach) plus legitimacy-safe Gen 5 (community resilience) often outperform reactive Gen 2 (debunking).
Why?
- Debunking in political context looks partisan
- Platform action is deniable (“just enforcing rules”)
- Community resilience builds without amplifying specific content
- Gen 2 most useful when claim is specific, contained, and addressable
Match response to political environment, not just to claim.
[screen 10]
Practical Scenario
Situation: A conspiracy theory about your organization is gaining traction. Current reach: ~5,000 social media posts, mostly from small accounts. Some mainstream media inquiries arriving. Internal pressure to “respond strongly.”
You have 5 response options:
- Issue public denial and detailed rebuttal
- Issue brief statement, no engagement with specifics
- Respond only to direct media inquiries
- Say nothing, monitor quietly
- Have third party (industry group) address
Task (15 minutes):
Score each option on:
- Amplification risk (1-5)
- Reversibility (1-5)
- Legitimacy impact (1-5)
Pick one with 100-word justification. Write: Assessment + Confidence + Next action
[screen 11]
Sample Response
| Option | Amp Risk | Reversibility | Legitimacy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Full rebuttal | 5 | 1 | 3 |
| 2. Brief statement | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 3. Media-only | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| 4. Silence | 1 | 5 | 4 |
| 5. Third party | 2 | 3 | 4 |
Selected: Option 4 (Silence) with escalation triggers
Justification: Current reach is low (~5,000 posts from small accounts). Any public response from the organization creates news hook and validates narrative as “serious enough to deny.” Media inquiries can be handled with brief background statements. Set escalation triggers: if reach exceeds 50,000 posts, mainstream outlet publishes sympathetic piece, or internal threat assessment elevates. Review in 48 hours. Prepare Option 2 for deployment if triggers met.
Assessment: Low-reach conspiracy not yet worth amplification risk of response. Confidence: Medium (reach estimates uncertain; could grow unexpectedly). Next action: Monitor, prepare contingency, set review point.
[screen 12]
Counter-Economy Traps
Watch for these patterns:
The Streisand Effect
- Attempt to suppress draws more attention
- Works especially with sympathetic fringe
The Legitimacy Transfer
- High-status critic gives low-status claim free credibility
- “If they’re attacking it, must be onto something”
The Persecution Narrative
- Response framed as “proof we’re over the target”
- Every intervention is incorporated into the story
The Content Laundering
- Fringe → criticism → coverage → mainstream
- Your response becomes the laundering agent
[screen 13]
When Response Is Right
Strategic silence isn’t always right. Respond when:
- Claim is already high-reach (silence won’t reduce it)
- Specific, verifiable claims addressable
- Audience is reachable and persuadable
- Response channels don’t add distribution
- Stakes justify amplification risk
- You have credible messenger
The point isn’t “never respond.” It’s “respond strategically.”
[screen 14]
Module Assessment
Scenario: A viral video falsely claims your organization is involved in illegal activity. Video has 500,000 views and growing. Traditional media is covering “the controversy.” Politicians are commenting.
Task (12 minutes):
- Why is strategic silence likely NOT appropriate here?
- Score 3 response options on amplification risk, reversibility, legitimacy
- What would you explicitly NOT claim in your response?
- Propose response strategy with clear rationale
- Assessment + Confidence + Next action
Scoring:
- Credit recognizing when silence fails
- Reward explicit limits on claims
- Penalize responses that add more fuel than water
[screen 15]
Key Takeaways
- Attention is the bloodstream; truth and lies both travel on it
- Some “counter” actions amplify the problem they oppose
- Symbiosis with the problem is incentive-driven, not conspiratorial
- Politics amplifies: authority pointing at something makes it bigger
- Ask: “Does this reduce harm or increase distribution?”
- Strategic silence is a valid option requiring discipline
- Write what you won’t claim before going public
- Stop rules prevent overreach
- Match response to political environment, not just to content
- High reach may require response; low reach may require patience
Next Module
Continue to: Cross-Border Disinfo — Trades cross borders, governance doesn’t. How to build plans that survive jurisdiction mismatch.