QAnon comes to mind when thinking about outrageous internet stories that have been given credibility by sites like Reddit all the way to actual media outlets like Fox, where parts of the entire conspiracy are referenced in order to paint candidates in a better or worse light.
On a different note, the article we read reminded me of one First Amendment argument, where the Founding Father’s could not have possibly comprehended the type of arms citizens would eventually be able to bare, just as they could not possible comprehend something like the internet and its complication with the Second Amendment. I also thought it was funny how the article painted America as the last stand, a victim of immoral governments in China and Russia, but America possesses greater resources than those countries and theoretically has the exact same capabilities as China and Russia. Who’s to say the U.S. does not conduct misinformation campaigns in other countries the way Russia did with its boarder countries?
Hi Essex, that’s an astute observation! So, Gerstell is actually a security adviser and as such, it’s his profession to be alarmed about the US specifically. Thus, no surprise that he presents a picture in which America is the one to be vulnerable to interventions that are depicted as primarily foreign. Yet you are very right in pointing out that, though we may not hear much about it, certainly there are American disinformation campaigns abroad as well. Just as we could rightly discuss the domestic ones as well… But why might it still be useful to think about misinformation as a security threat?
Or, how can we think about misinformation as a security threat without falling into this one-sided depiction advanced by Gerstell?