[screen 1]
Did Russian interference change the outcome of the 2016 US election? Did FIMI operations affect the Brexit vote? Do COVID-19 disinformation campaigns cost lives?
These questions matter enormously - but they’re exceptionally difficult to answer with confidence. Understanding FIMI impact requires grappling with complex methodology and acknowledging uncertainty.
[screen 2]
Why Impact Assessment Matters
Understanding FIMI effectiveness helps:
- Resource allocation: Investing in defenses proportional to threat
- Policy responses: Designing appropriate countermeasures
- Public awareness: Communicating the nature and scale of threats
- Deterrence: Demonstrating consequences to adversaries
- Learning: Understanding what works and what doesn’t
But impact assessment faces fundamental methodological challenges that make definitive conclusions difficult.
[screen 3]
Levels of Impact
FIMI impact operates at multiple levels:
Reach: How many people saw the content?
Engagement: How many interacted with it?
Attention: Did it receive meaningful attention or just scroll-by?
Belief: Did people believe the claims?
Attitude change: Did it shift opinions?
Behavior: Did it affect actions (voting, vaccination, etc.)?
Outcomes: Did it change election results, policy, or events?
Each level is harder to measure than the last.
[screen 4]
Measuring Reach and Engagement
Platform data can quantify exposure:
- Number of accounts reached
- Impressions and views
- Likes, shares, comments
- Time spent engaging
Example: Facebook reported Russian IRA content reached 126 million Americans before 2016 election. This measures exposure, not effect.
But reach alone doesn’t indicate impact - millions see content they ignore or disbelieve.
[screen 5]
The Organic Amplification Question
FIMI operations seed content, but authentic users amplify it:
- How much reach came from inauthentic accounts vs organic sharing?
- At what point did content become self-sustaining?
- Would it have spread without foreign seeding?
Distinguishing foreign manipulation from organic discourse is analytically challenging - and politically fraught.
[screen 6]
Narrative Penetration
Assessing whether narratives entered public consciousness:
Indicators:
- Media coverage of FIMI-seeded stories
- Political figures repeating claims
- Survey data showing belief in specific narratives
- Search trends related to false claims
Narrative penetration can occur even if people don’t fully believe - false claims shape the questions being debated.
[screen 7]
Attitude Change Measurement
Determining if FIMI operations changed opinions requires:
Surveys: Tracking belief in specific claims over time (but correlation ≠ causation)
Experimental studies: Exposing people to content and measuring effects (but artificial conditions)
Natural experiments: Comparing exposed vs unexposed populations (but confounding variables)
All methods have limitations. Isolating FIMI effects from other influences is nearly impossible in real-world settings.
[screen 8]
The Counterfactual Problem
The hardest question: What would have happened without FIMI?
- Would Trump have won without Russian interference?
- Would Brexit vote have been different without foreign amplification?
- How many people died from COVID misinformation?
We can’t rerun history without FIMI to find out. This makes definitive impact claims impossible - we can only assess likelihood and contributing factors.
[screen 9]
Electoral Impact Debates
Assessing election influence is especially contentious:
Arguments for significant impact:
- Close elections where small shifts matter
- Documented reach of millions of voters
- Narrative penetration into mainstream discourse
- Targeting of swing voters in key states
Arguments for limited impact:
- Most content reached people already decided
- Exposure doesn’t equal persuasion
- Domestic factors (candidates, campaigns, economy) likely more important
- Polarization already existed before FIMI
Honest assessment: Contributed to information environment, but magnitude unknown.
[screen 10]
Public Health Impact
Health misinformation has measurable consequences:
- Vaccination rates correlated with exposure to anti-vax content
- Adoption of ineffective or dangerous “treatments”
- Rejection of public health measures
- Observable health outcomes (disease spread, hospitalizations, deaths)
Still, isolating foreign manipulation from domestic misinformation is difficult. But public health effects of misinformation (regardless of origin) are documentable.
[screen 11]
Societal Polarization
FIMI operations often aim to increase division:
Measurable indicators:
- Polarization indexes over time
- Trust in institutions declining
- Political violence increases
- Social cohesion metrics
But many factors contribute to polarization beyond FIMI. Foreign operations amplify existing tensions - they rarely create them from nothing.
Assessment: FIMI contributes to polarization, but quantifying its share is difficult.
[screen 12]
Long-Term vs. Short-Term Effects
FIMI impact varies by timeframe:
Short-term:
- Immediate engagement and reach
- Trending topics and news cycles
- Election day behavior
Long-term:
- Cumulative erosion of trust
- Normalization of conspiracy thinking
- Increased polarization
- Weakened democratic institutions
Long-term effects may be more significant but harder to measure. The goal isn’t always immediate persuasion but gradual degradation of information environment.
[screen 13]
Methodological Challenges
Impact assessment faces fundamental obstacles:
- Selection bias: People choose what content to consume
- Confounding variables: Many factors influence attitudes and behavior
- Measurement: Hard to track exposure across platforms and over time
- Causation: Correlation doesn’t prove FIMI caused observed changes
- Self-reporting: Survey responses may not reflect true beliefs or behavior
- Ethical limits: Can’t experimentally expose people to harmful content to measure effects
These challenges mean conclusions require qualifications and acknowledgment of uncertainty.
[screen 14]
Cost-Benefit from Adversary Perspective
Assessing FIMI success from actor perspective:
Low costs:
- Information operations cheap relative to military or traditional intelligence
- Plausible deniability reduces diplomatic costs
- Persistence possible even after exposure
Potential benefits:
- Influence democratic processes
- Undermine alliances and trust
- Justify geopolitical actions
- Defend against criticism
Even if effects are uncertain or modest, favorable cost-benefit ratio encourages continued operations.
[screen 15]
The Perception Impact
FIMI affects perceptions regardless of measurable outcomes:
- Awareness of foreign manipulation increases suspicion and uncertainty
- Opponents of election results can cite foreign interference (whether it mattered or not)
- Undermines confidence in democratic processes
- Creates pretext for authoritarian measures
“Nothing is true and everything is possible” - even perception of widespread manipulation serves some actors’ interests.
[screen 16]
What We Can Say With Confidence
Despite measurement challenges, some conclusions are defensible:
- FIMI operations reach millions of people
- Foreign-seeded narratives enter mainstream discourse
- Operations exploit and amplify existing divisions
- Effects likely vary by context (close elections, crises)
- Contributing factor among many, not sole determinant
- Long-term cumulative effects may exceed short-term measurable impacts
- Enough evidence of harm to justify defensive investments
[screen 17]
Implications for Defense
Impact assessment uncertainty doesn’t mean inaction:
- We don’t need to quantify exact impact to justify defense
- Protecting information integrity is valuable regardless of precise effects
- Prevention is easier than measuring after-the-fact impact
- Building resilience addresses multiple threats simultaneously
- Democratic values justify defending information space even without perfect impact metrics
Impact assessment informs strategy, but defense doesn’t require certainty about past effects - reasonable concern about potential harm suffices.