Purpose: Build plans that survive jurisdiction mismatch and censorship optics.
Output format: Assessment → Confidence (low/med/high) → Next action
[screen 1]
Borders for Law, Not Content
Disinformation campaigns cross borders effortlessly. Liability and legitimacy don’t.
A campaign can originate in Country A, be hosted in Country B, amplified through a platform headquartered in Country C, target audiences in Countries D through G, and evade jurisdiction everywhere.
Your legal authority stops at your border. The content doesn’t.
[screen 2]
Export Logic Exists
Some state and non-state actors treat influence operations as export products:
- Playbooks developed domestically, applied internationally
- Reusable assets (networks, infrastructure, personnel)
- Distribution services available for hire
- Proven techniques licensed to allied actors
This is an industry, not a series of isolated incidents. Campaigns that worked in one country get adapted for others.
[screen 3]
Platforms Are Geopolitical Actors
Major platforms operate globally but are headquartered in specific jurisdictions.
What this means:
- They optimize for scale, not national interest
- Fragmented governance creates operational flexibility
- Different rules in different markets (when enforced at all)
- Lobbying power concentrated in home jurisdiction
Platforms navigate between governments. Understanding their positioning helps predict their behavior.
[screen 4]
Fragmentation Is a Strategy
For malign actors, fragmented response is a feature, not a bug.
Exploitation patterns:
- Forum shop for weakest jurisdiction
- Exploit gaps between national enforcement
- Use sovereignty arguments to block cooperation
- Play democracies against each other
If responses split, campaigns win by default. Coordination is necessary, not optional.
[screen 5]
Minimum Viable Alignment
Perfect international agreement is impossible. Minimum viable alignment is achievable.
Elements of MVA:
- Shared thresholds (what constitutes actionable content)
- Shared reporting format (how to communicate about incidents)
- Shared escalation triggers (when to coordinate response)
- Shared attribution standards (what evidence counts)
You don’t need identical laws. You need compatible responses.
[screen 6]
Legitimacy Constraints
Here’s the hard truth:
If your plan looks like censorship, it will fail politically — even if “effective” by narrow metrics.
Legitimacy requirements:
- Due process (clear rules, appeal mechanisms)
- Transparency (public about what’s being addressed)
- Proportionality (response matches harm)
- Non-partisan application (not just targeting opponents)
Effective isn’t enough. Legitimate and effective is the standard.
[screen 7]
Operational Coordination
Vague cooperation fails. Operational coordination requires answers:
Who decides?
- Which entity triggers response?
- What’s the decision-making process?
- Who has authority in ambiguous cases?
Who acts?
- Platform? Government? Civil society?
- What’s the sequence of actions?
Who communicates?
- Single voice or coordinated messaging?
- Who talks to media?
Who measures?
- What counts as success?
- How is effectiveness assessed?
Name it. Don’t vibe it.
[screen 8]
DIM Application for Cross-Border
Cross-border scenarios usually need blended toolkit:
Gen 4 (Reach reduction)
- Platform action across jurisdictions
- Shared enforcement standards
- Coordinated moderation requests
Gen 3 (Prebunking)
- Resilience building before campaigns hit
- Shared early warning
- Cross-border media literacy
Gen 5 (Cohesion)
- Building aligned civil society
- Cross-border fact-checking networks
- Shared professional standards
Gen 2 (Debunking) — use sparingly
- Rapid response when claims cross borders
- But debunking in one country can be amplified to reach others
[screen 9]
Practical Scenario
Situation: A coordinated campaign is spreading election disinformation across three EU member states. The content originates from servers in a non-EU country. Platforms are US-based. Each member state has different legal frameworks for addressing online harms.
Your task (20 minutes):
Write a 12-line cross-border memo covering:
- Key constraints (legal, political, operational)
- Minimum shared actions (what all parties should do)
- What you’ll explicitly avoid (overreach, legitimacy risks)
- Success metrics (how you’ll know if response worked)
- Assessment + Confidence + Next action
[screen 10]
Sample Memo Structure
CROSS-BORDER RESPONSE MEMO: Election Disinfo Campaign
Constraints:
- Jurisdiction mismatch: origin outside EU, platforms in US, targets in 3 MS
- Legal variation: each MS has different takedown authority
- Timing: election in 14 days limits coordination window
- Legitimacy: any response will be characterized as “censorship” by some
Minimum Shared Actions:
- All 3 MS report to platform via existing channels (24hr)
- Shared attribution standard: “coordinated inauthentic behavior” (requires evidence)
- Single public statement from EU-level entity (avoids fragmented messaging)
- Synchronized prebunking content through existing fact-check networks
Explicit Avoidance:
- Will NOT claim foreign state attribution without strong evidence
- Will NOT pursue content removal for opinion (only coordinated inauthenticity)
- Will NOT make independent national statements (coordination priority)
Success Metrics:
- Reach reduction >50% within 72 hours
- No legitimate speech chilled (measured by false positive reports)
- Coordinated response maintained (no defection)
- Post-action review with lessons learned
Assessment: Manageable cross-border incident requiring coordination discipline. Confidence: Medium (depends on platform cooperation and MS alignment). Next action: Initiate MS coordination call; parallel platform escalation.
[screen 11]
Common Cross-Border Failures
Failure 1: Going it alone
- Single country acts, others don’t follow
- Creates perception of overreach
- Doesn’t address root problem
Failure 2: Waiting for perfect alignment
- Coordination delays while campaign grows
- Perfect becoming enemy of good
Failure 3: Ignoring legitimacy
- Effective action that appears authoritarian
- Political backlash exceeds disinformation harm
Failure 4: Platform dependence
- Assuming platform will act on request
- No contingency for non-cooperation
[screen 12]
Building Cross-Border Capacity
Long-term investments that pay off:
Relationships: Know your counterparts before incidents Standards: Agreed protocols before they’re needed Technology: Shared detection and monitoring infrastructure Trust: Built through repeated successful cooperation Learning: Systematic post-incident review and improvement
You can’t build coordination during a crisis. Build it before.
[screen 13]
The Sovereignty Trap
Malign actors exploit sovereignty rhetoric:
“You’re interfering in our domestic affairs” “This is censorship by foreign powers” “Democratic nations shouldn’t coordinate against speech”
Counter-framing:
- Defending democracy isn’t threatening it
- Coordinated defense isn’t coordinated censorship
- Sovereignty includes right to protect information environment
But this only works if your actions are genuinely legitimate. Overreach validates the critique.
[screen 14]
Module Assessment
Scenario: Intelligence indicates a foreign state actor is preparing a disinformation campaign targeting upcoming elections in 5 European countries. The campaign will use platforms based in the US, content created in the foreign state, and amplified through a mix of authentic local partisans and inauthentic accounts.
Task (15 minutes):
- List 3 jurisdiction-related constraints
- Propose minimum viable alignment (3 elements)
- What platform cooperation would you seek?
- What legitimacy guardrails would you implement?
- How would you handle domestic actors who amplify the foreign campaign?
- Assessment + Confidence + Next action
Scoring:
- Credit realistic constraints acknowledgment
- Reward legitimacy awareness
- Penalize responses that ignore sovereignty concerns
[screen 15]
Key Takeaways
- Disinformation trades cross borders; governance doesn’t
- Export logic: influence operations are a repeatable product
- Platforms are geopolitical actors navigating between governments
- Fragmentation is a strategy for malign actors; coordination is necessary defense
- Minimum viable alignment beats perfect agreement that never happens
- If it looks like censorship, it will fail politically
- Operational coordination requires named roles: who decides, acts, communicates, measures
- Cross-border usually needs blended DIM: Gen 4 + Gen 3 + Gen 5, with Gen 2 used sparingly
- Build coordination capacity before crises, not during them
Next Module
Continue to: Attack the Rows — Externalities, internalisation, and the “solved ledger.” How to stop subsidizing spillovers.