Podcast appearances and mentions of stanford internet observatory

Listen to Zooming In at The UnPopulist in your favorite podcast app: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeBerny Belvedere: Renée DiResta, thanks for joining us on Zooming In, our flagship podcast here at The UnPopulist. You've been on before a couple of times. You've done podcasts with us, you've spoken at LibCon—in fact, during our first LibCon, LibCon 2024, your book generated intense interest. It seemed to be the book of the summer. You remember that?Renée DiResta: I do, thanks so much.Belvedere: It felt like at every other session, some panelist would say something like, “and to explore this further, I really recommend Renée DiResta's new book, which is just wonderful.” Right? I don't know why I did that in a nerd voice. Your endorsers are wonderful people.But Renée, welcome again. I want to dive right in. You have a new report out. It's put out by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It was written by you and two co-authors, Rachel Kleinfeld and Margot Treadwell. That's a powerful lineup. We've run Rachel's work in our pages before and it's top notch. The report is fantastic. It did not disappoint. For anyone interested in how the broader world of news and opinion discourse works today, it's immediately one of the most useful resources to pick up. And it's especially useful for practitioners, for people who work in the space, like we do.But to help with some scene setting, can you tell us about the report in broad brushstrokes? We'll then narrow in from there.DiResta: So I think about this as report part two. Last year, in September, almost one year to the day, we put out a provocation saying: “institutions need to change how they communicate in order to compete in the new media environment.” And we wrote a framing on why that was, on how social media was no longer this niche thing that those people over there did. If you wanted to reach the public, this is where people are—and you have to reach them where they are and in a manner that they find appealing. The way that you communicate is just different now.That attracted a lot of attention and it got us a ton of inbound, particularly from philanthropy, because we were also telling philanthropists you have to change how you think about outputs and outcomes that matter. For a lot of academics and others, participation in the public conversation is, if not discouraged, it's not really encouraged. It doesn't move the needle for your tenure committee, that sort of thing. How could philanthropists shift the thinking on why communicating to the public actually was critical? We got a ton of inbound on it and the question we got most often was: “How?”This report is the how. The basic premise is that most Americans now get their information and form their opinions through creators, podcasts, Substacks, group chats. Most traditional institutions have only minimal engagement or presence in those spaces. So that ecosystem runs on a very different model of legitimacy. People are following people, not institutions. They're following people that they find appealing or relatable. Somebody coming to you from their kitchen. Credentials and institutional polish actually can read as almost a sort of distance now.Those are the elites saying that stuff from over there, whereas this person is just talking to me in their kitchen. They're real.We write about how fact-based institutions have often thought about this shift to social as a repackaging job. “All right, how do I take my massive PDF”—and, by the way, this report is a massive PDF—“how do I take that and put out a couple screenshots on social media or generate a reel?” They see it more as engaging when you have something to release, when you have just put something out. So it's very self-serving. They're not using social media as a communicator in an ongoing conversation where they're having a back and forth with their audience. They're using it as a broadcast tool and they're reformulating the thing that they wanted to broadcast into a format that nominally works but is missing that dialogue.So our guide argues that it's a strategy problem—and that CEOs and boards have to own this. They have to think about it, not as the thing that happens after you've done your work, but as an active part of your ongoing relationship to the public. We framed the report as a series of questions to guide that thinking. We did a bunch of case studies, really spanning the communication ecosystem we have. How Jon Haidt turned some of his work into a movement. We have how Turning Point became a juggernaut. We have some of the Mamdani campaign stuff. Not endorsing any position there—but saying, “here's some interesting stuff that you can learn from how this group strategically chose to engage the public through these means.”Belvedere: I thought the guide did a really great job of bringing in real world examples. You also brought up David French and the reception he received. His case is a fascinating one because of what it represents and what it says about the subcommunity that he had that parting of the ways with, and the way they gate-kept him from continued access to it.But I want to pick up on something that you mentioned in passing just now in your broad overview. There's a line in the report that really struck me as I was reading it. As you put it, credentials and institutional polish—the CV virtues—now read as distance and disconnect rather than authority, which is what it used to read as. Do you think that's a permanent rewiring of how trust just works now?DiResta: It's an interesting question. Trust and authoritativeness are distinct. You trust your neighbor without necessarily thinking they're an authority. You just find them a trustworthy person. You would give them your keys. They can feed your dog, that sort of thing. And it doesn't matter what they do or what their professional credentials are. What matters is just that you have a relationship. You feel that this person is somebody who would support you if you need it, that they're going to level with you. They're going to tell you the truth, even if you might not want to hear it.That's the idea of trust as something that is deeper than expertise. Sure, it goes hand in hand with it at times. We would like it to be tightly coupled. We want people to trust experts, but the idea of relatability instead is: “Why would this person who seems just like me lie to me? Why would they deceive me? What do they get out of it?” Whereas people sincerely believe that elite institutions are working to serve their own agenda, and that is often seen as being at odds with the average, everyday person. You see this in politics when people ask, “Why is this politician talking about this thing, performing this action, when I just care about putting food on the table for my family?” You see that gap in what lands and resonates with people versus what people in elite or institutional positions want to talk about.Sometimes this is a disconnect that gets lamented in liberal spaces, particularly as, “well, if only they listened, they would understand that my policy proposal for this thing does help them 10 degrees and five years later.” But in the immediate here and now, it's that question of: Do I trust the person who's speaking to me? Do they seem just like me?I had this experience when I was a new mom. I was one of the first in my friend group to have kids. I didn't know what to do. I was living across the country from my family and didn't have much support. So I turned to the internet, right? Who are the people who are going to help me understand what I'm supposed to do with this baby? How do I make him sleep? How do I make him eat? How do I not screw this up? I think it's a very personal experience that a lot of people have where that sense that reading a PDF on an institutional website is not the same thing as somebody sitting there with you taking the time. There's a phrase that I think it was Jeff Jarvis who once said to me in conversation: “the media talks to the public and the influencers talk with them.”I think that's the best framing I've heard for that. Content creators understand how to talk with their audiences, where even people who may have better information, more expertise, authoritative content, are not necessarily communicating that in a way that feels real and connects to a sense that this person is telling me the truth.Belvedere: I'm wondering what's the right read on this broad question of trust that we're all grappling with. Take, for example, the aftershocks from a specific high profile instance of trust collapse—something like Covid. I think Covid's a really instructive episode in many different ways. There's been a lot of revisionism about it. What was different about Covid compared to other past trying moments in society is that Covid became politicized in a particular way by an extremely potent right-wing discourse-shaping machine. That's not going to stop being in place.“A lot of institutions are taught to stay on message at all times—if you hand your message to somebody else, you lose control of it. But you can't tell them what to say. They're going to say what they want to say. They might get it wrong. But counterintuitively, I think that actually generates more dialogue, more attention, and provides you with a way to accomplish something you might not be good at yourself. Your CEO might not actually be the best face to talk about this thing—the 20 year old you hired, who is much more comfortable with this, is actually the person who should be out there engaging, putting out the message, or working with a creator or creator lab and essentially briefing them.” — Renée DiRestaSo my overriding fear is that Covid is not an outlier. And that anything in society like Covid that requires elite management, whether it's the dissemination of information, policies that help curb some of the worst effects of not abiding by certain standards, all of that is going to run up against an information machine architecturally designed to demagogue that issue, to create a trust collapse, to point out any little mistakes and amplify them as though they're an example of the elites just completely botching everything. Is there any hope that that wanes?DiResta: That's a very interesting question—let me give you a couple of answers.Two things were true about Covid. I was writing about this in The Atlantic during the pandemic: the institutional communicators really dropped the ball—in my opinion, but I think that's been quite backed up at this point. I remember writing that it would be nice to see the CDC's website look more like Wikipedia, where you can see the change log, the public can understand in this fast moving situation—you can go back and read the edit history, you can see who made the change, you can understand how consensus forms in a scientific community. Because there's such a time lag, right? They are waiting until they are absolutely, 100% sure before they say something. In that time, the people are still looking for information, and they're going to get it from whoever is willing to give it to them. On social media, there's an incentive structure: if you're first, you get rewarded; if you're sensational, you get rewarded. If you're right? That doesn't really matter. Maybe you'll get a Community Note, maybe a fact check, but that's not really the point. The point is: Are you first, are you relatable, do you seem authentic, can your stuff go viral? It's a very different communication style and game.So the first thing that was true is that the institutions dropped the ball in comms during Covid communications. And I was writing about it as it happened, because my job was to study social media rumors and narratives around the vaccine. I was like: “Come on, guys! You gotta get in the game here! You're not going to content-moderate this out of existence—that's just not how it works. You're going to turn this into forbidden knowledge.” We did everything we possibly could to try to systematically change that. And the people who did respond were the first-person speakers who began to emerge: physicians. You saw doctors working shifts at Bellevue doing live updates about the morgue trucks—those were the people who managed to break through, because they had the credentials, but they were also able to say very directly to the public: this is the truth, this is what you need to know, Covid is real, even as the institutions weren't doing that.But the second thing that's true is that, as you note, the failures, flaws, and missteps get immediately weaponized. That turns into: “you can't trust those people, they didn't tell you the truth then, never forget what they did to us.” That rhetoric isn't really about finding truth, or understanding a novel pathogen, or whether a vaccine works—remember, this was the first time one had ever been rolled out in an emergency setting. It turns into: “here's why you can never trust those people, and you can only trust me.”That got reinforced through litigation. They lost all their court cases, but they still sued people who tried to deal with the falsehoods and misleading content, and any effort to label it or fact-check it got reframed as censorship. It was really wild to see what that machine juggernaut managed to do to reinforce that only it was going to tell its base the truth, and they couldn't trust anything on the outside. That's the kind of rhetoric you usually see from cults—“you can't trust anybody but me.” It's a very different style of communication, and I found it personally alarming to see it happen in the context of a pandemic, because it has serious downstream consequences.Belvedere: Yeah, and I mean, think about the way you just described that—an informational cult kind of environment, scaled up to half the country, or at least to a large share of people getting their news from less-than-ideal sources. I think it's going to continue to be a problem.DiResta: Let me follow up on that quickly. I spent about [six months] watching the vaccine rollout—February through August of 2021, as Operation Warp Speed rolled out. I watched what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other long-standing—just to be clear, long-standing—anti-vaccine activists did. These weren't people who simply didn't like the Covid shot; no, these were people who had been telling you vaccines cause autism, dating back to the 1990s. I watched them capitalize on this in the most incredible ways. They were absolutely transparent about it—they were like, “this is our chance to undermine confidence in the entire vaccine enterprise.” And that is exactly what they did. They didn't hide the ball—they were live-streaming taking about it. “This is our chance to tell the public that all of these things are poison.” And now we have kids dying of measles.That's the downstream effect of this: they managed to connect that distrust to other things. They didn't just create distrust around one incident or fact; they created the idea that nobody in the medical establishment has your best interests at heart. That's what they managed to achieve as a result of Covid.Belvedere: I want to stay on this, because I think we're all trying to figure out the right posture here. You bring up Joe Rogan and his effect on psychedelics policy: a lot of people know him through segments where he talks through his drug trips, or a guest's. Or, another example: online creators helping speed up the end of USAID. And there are other cases. But these are cases where influence and factual accuracy are completely decoupled. For organizations whose whole value proposition is getting reality right, being accurate—a lot of people in these spaces ask a question that is one neighborhood down but the same city: “Where's the liberal answer to Joe Rogan?” We've been asking that question since the post-mortem on 2024, and even before. A lot of our institutions feel saddled by the sense that in order to compete on reach, in this new marketplace of ideas, we can't really compete on accuracy's terms.Roger Ailes created Fox News in the '90s. It wasn't [presented] as a dominant player—it was a countervailing force: “the media is captured, so we're going to bring balance back.” “Fair and balanced”—that whole thing; a whole alternative institution positioned against the media itself. So [this side] has had an insurgent mindset from the start—Rush Limbaugh and others. I've brought this up a lot. Even the Ailes project, Fox News, it had institutional trappings, institutional clothing, but it really had this insurgent energy, whatever it said about itself early on. That posture was able to scale beautifully once podcasting, YouTube, and the internet more broadly made these tools available. It was disintermediation. People like Ben Shapiro with The Daily Wire, Charlie Kirk, really ran with the ball a lot better in these spaces, it seemed like. It never felt like liberals had their own Ailes moment, because it felt like they were fine with The New York Times and The Atlantic.Is the real gap here about talent, effort, and ability, or just needing to catch up after playing behind for so long? Or is it more that this is a different language, that [that side] can easily and naturally slot into, and for us it has to be more performative, a little contrived—like a theater kid having to learn how to act?DiResta: It's funny—there's so much in what you're saying there. First, when you can position yourself oppositionally—“we're the underdog, we're David, they're Goliath”—that's an archetype, a story everybody knows, that people immediately understand where you're positioning yourself. “They are all telling you the same thing”; “that is a monolith, that's the state propaganda machine manufacturing consent, we're the plucky little outlet trying to break through.” And then, of course, they maintain that outsider branding and status even as their audience becomes massive—quite a lot larger, in fact, than some of that so-called establishment media.You see this with a phrase that comes out of QAnon: “we are the media now.” What they're saying is: “we can break through, we can make stuff trend, we can make stuff go viral, we can take our (in the context of QAnon, I think it's fair to say) crackpot ideas and put them out there, get them seen, get them part of the discourse, and then people have to pay attention to us.” That's where “we are the media now” comes from. It was popularized by Elon, because he picked up that phrase and it is so much in the ether on X—I don't even know if he understands the provenance. But “we are the media now” becomes the idea that we're the opposition now, and all that legacy stuff—including Fox, mind you, which is legacy too—is old. You actually see the schisms now, especially since they're in power everywhere on the right: influencers going to war with Fox News.“I once had someone screenshot every social media post where I'd used a curse word and send it to my dean. And I was like: “I said all of that. That's 100% real.” This is the internet, after all. Would I use that language in a talk? Probably not. I'm from New York, so sometimes I do. But if you're constantly second-guessing, clarifying, checking yourself … and you do need to be correct, because in some cases your credentials are on the line when you're speaking about the thing you're actually presenting. But your delivery can afford to be a bit more flexible, a bit more relaxed.” — Renée DiRestaVenkatesh Rao wrote about this in “The Internet of Beefs”—one of the most astute assessments of how social media works, in my opinion. If you have conflict, that's fantastic: it benefits both parties, gets both parties attention, and there's no incentive to actually win the conflict, because the conflict itself is like a soap opera—it just keeps going. That's where you start to see right-wing influencers say, “Fox News is establishment, Bush-era media, and we'll tell you the truth—on social, on our platforms, on our streams, on our podcasts.” That's where you start to see that shift.There's also something Rachel and I wrote about in the first report: institutional and academic speakers are media-trained for a very different world, where you get a three- to five-minute segment. If you've never done TV before, they tell you roughly what you'll be asked, you prepare your talking points in advance because you have so little time, you deliver the soundbite, and the segment's over. That's completely different from what I experienced doing Rogan in 2019—a two-and-a-half-hour conversation with no prep. I'm going to be there and you either know your stuff or you don't. His audience either likes me or it doesn't. Half of them hated me!And that's fine—it is what it is. I showed up for a reason. There's a completely different vernacular, style, and approach when you're having a two-hour conversation with somebody, where you're going to listen to what they have to say, and you're responding back much more as a human than as a person who's there to digest for the public, in a three-minute hit, what you said in that report over there or what happened in the world and why you, the expert, with your credentials and your chyron should think about it. It's a completely different experience.So does it go back to the old way? I don't think it does—I haven't thought that for the better part of 10 years now. I started writing about the anti-vaccine movement in 2015, as a mom, saying: “I have got to say something about this.” What became MAHA is now a political movement that sits in power at HHS. What they understood was that empathy and relatability, the feeling that they are talking with you, matters so much more than a PDF or an academic paper that sits behind a paywall that nobody can read without an academic library license. That's not going back to normal. So the question that's motivated me and Rachel is: How do you teach people who do have the knowledge and the skill set to compete differently?Belvedere: On that note, on liberals' broad failure to penetrate a lot of these spaces, these subcommunities, these niche places where people gather … think about all the subcultures we have in the United States—there are plenty that liberals are just really poor at reaching, or at having any presence within at all.DiResta: I'm an independent. My complaint is about how liberals communicate versus how conservatives communicate. I spend a lot of time in both ecosystems, in person, and I try to engage with the media apparatus on the right too, partly because they make up conspiracy theories about me, so I feel like I have to. But there's a difference in how carefully you have to think through what you're about to say—what performance are you putting on in that moment? Conservatives use the word “based”—you're talking in a way that's almost intentionally provocative at times, and sometimes it goes way off the rails; sometimes it's not good at all. But there's a sense that when you're hearing from the liberal establishment, you're hearing qualifiers—everything is qualified.This is something I used to talk about when making content: on Instagram Reels, you've got three seconds to hook your audience. If you start with a qualifier about how what you're saying doesn't necessarily apply to all people, in all places, at all times, you're done—that took three seconds, that's it, we're done. So the question is: How do you get comfortable either owning an opinion unapologetically, or framing it in a way where you're just like, “yeah, whatever, somebody on the internet is always going to yell at me, I don't care, I'm going to say the thing anyway”? That's a limitation I just don't see in conservative spaces.Again, that means things can go way off the rails, and some of it is genuinely not good. But the flip side is that [liberal content] can sound stilted, practiced, polished. And the incentive structure is scary for the participant—for the academic who decides to try being more casual in their presentation. I once had someone screenshot every social media post where I'd used a curse word and send it to my dean. And I was like: “I said all of that. That's 100% real.” This is the internet, after all. Would I use that language in a talk? Probably not. I'm from New York, so sometimes I do. But if you're constantly second-guessing, clarifying, checking yourself … and you do need to be correct, because in some cases your credentials are on the line when you're speaking about the thing you're actually presenting. But your delivery can afford to be a bit more flexible, a bit more relaxed.What I've loved over the last few years since Covid is watching public health experts and epidemiologists start presenting as themselves: “here I am, I've got this expertise, and I'm also going to tell you about my kids, or this dress I bought, or this thing I did.” It makes them more relatable, more human—because they are, in fact, relatable and human. It's not an artifice. But they understand that doing this actually helps establish their credibility, more than just the credential. So if me saying a curse word on Twitter … normal people curse on Twitter.Belvedere: And not to be too cynical about it, but this is something intuitively understood by people on the wrong side of things. Trump will have a word randomly capitalized as a marker of his style, and without it, the message would feel too polished—even though, grammatically, it would be correct.One reaction people sometimes have to a discussion like this is: “all you're talking about is communication, this is social media stuff, it's more fluff than substance.” I think that couldn't be more wrong, because if we care about the issues we're writing about, if we want action taken on them …DiResta: Yes! It is a persuasive process.Belvedere: … if we want people to care about authoritarianism or corruption in government, raising the salience of those issues becomes really important. If we're collectively bad at it, if we don't have the “juice” that the other side does, our issues stay dormant, untouched, unlistened to, uncared about, while the other side's issues will be front and center, driving the conversation. You talk about issue salience needing to travel across networks before it becomes a thing. Could you unpack that? You've got multiple creators, adjacent communities … help us understand how that works.DiResta: So, often times, when you open your social media feed—whatever ranked platform you use, which is almost all of them—you're seeing what the platform has decided is important for you, and that's not the same as what's important to the person sitting next to you on the train. So you innately think a lot of people care about something, or are talking about something, when it turns out—take X as an example: you log in, there's a “trends” feature, and it'll surface a trend when there are maybe 200 posts about something. That's not a trend in any national sense; it's basically the platform tweaking a small number of people who'll respond to it. They see it and think, “there are 2,000 posts about this, I care a lot about that thing, I'm going to add my voice, retweet it, reshare it”—and if a sufficient number of people do that, it gets bigger, and eventually it shows up on something like a mass-movement leaderboard.I spent five years at the Stanford Internet Observatory taking a network-science approach to this. Let me give a specific example—we can stick with the pandemic, because I think it's quite important as a case study. I don't know how many people remember the Plandemic video. It featured Judy Mikovits, a woman with serious credential issues and at least one retracted paper, who'd had a series of dramatic career incidents that led to her being put into the autism-conference crankosphere. She was releasing a book and doing a lot of book promo, but she was never especially polished doing those direct engagements herself. The director, Mikki Willis, made the video—kept her on task, shot it very strategically. It's about 20 minutes long, and it argues that the pandemic is being used to keep people from “healing microbes on the beach,” and that's why they are locking down beaches, and so on—a very conspiratorial film.Now Mikovits had been saying these things on prior podcasts for a while, but it stayed confined; it got almost no reach outside the anti-vaccine networks, where that kind of content is normal and expected. What was different about Plandemic is that because of the polish, the packaging, the formatting, and Willis's own reach and network, it hopped out of the anti-vaccine ecosystem and started landing everywhere. We had a tool called CrowdTangle that let us pull where URLs were winding up and being shared, and the Plandemic link was showing up in the Corgi Club, the Beach Club, local school-board groups—everywhere. We could only see public data, so I'd imagine that's just the tip of the iceberg.The public really found it compelling. Reading the comments as part of that analysis, people were saying things like: “she seems so authoritative, she has this personal beef with Anthony Fauci, who I've also been hearing is untrustworthy; they are keeping us locked down in our houses, why is that happening?” It really landed and resonated. That's an actual moment where normally this speakers and those topics stay confined to a very specific niche part of the internet, with this video, they managed to absolutely blew out of the water. Here is how it works when you take something and you frame somebody in the right way, you make them seem relatable and resonant and you edit the content in a very compelling, exciting, and mysterious way. This is how you create a mass conversation about something. Ordinarily this person would have stayed confined to her niche, but in that particular moment, with that particular piece of content, they nailed it.Belvedere: I asked about that because on our side, we're trying to do some of the same work you're outlining. ISMA puts out LibCon and The UnPopulist—The UnPopulist is our flagship publication, LibCon is the conference series that we put out. The UnPopulist has buy-in from figures across the ideological spectrum; and the whole model of ISMA is to build a coalition—a realignment of liberal versus illiberal—and for us to be on that liberal side, spanning classical liberals, center-left, and center-right: people who are single-issue defectors, who have enough qualms with the authoritarianism we're seeing that they come over to our side. At our last LibCon, we had C-SPAN in the same room as a bunch of streamers broadcasting. It was an interesting mix, and that's the sort of work we're trying to do. As I said earlier, though, it's not necessarily the language that's easy for a lot of liberals to speak—it takes intentional partnerships, looking through different content forms, finding where a good ally or partner can be found.“These weren't people who simply didn't like the Covid shot; no, these were people who had been telling you vaccines cause autism, dating back to the 1990s. I watched them capitalize on this in the most incredible ways. They were absolutely transparent about it—they were like, ‘this is our chance to undermine confidence in the entire vaccine enterprise.' And that is exactly what they did. They didn't hide the ball—they were live-streaming taking about it. ‘This is our chance to tell the public that all of these things are poison.' And now we have kids dying of measles. That's the downstream effect of this: they managed to connect that distrust to other things. They didn't just create distrust around one incident or fact; they created the idea that nobody in the medical establishment has your best interests at heart. That's what they managed to achieve as a result of Covid.” — Renée DiRestaIt used to be that an organization could get away with just publishing a headline, an article image, and letting the feed auto-populate. Now every platform, the whole online space, requires more thoughtfulness, more intentionality, more strategic thinking. At the risk of asking for a One Neat Trick: is there one thing that, if a capacity developed overnight, would be a game changer for us on this path that we want to take—to be better communicators, to help the issues we care about get that amplification and resonance?DiResta: I think it is that co-creation and that incorporation of people who are innately good and talented at this. I was at LibCon this year with Whick and Soypill, two of the streamers who were there, because the first night of the conference happened to be the night Trump gave that speech about the election being rigged by China. As it happens, I have a lot of experience looking at Chinese influence operations around the 2020 election, so I'd been on Whick's stream before, and he asked if I wanted to come on. I said let's do it, and we broke it down live for the audience—here's what Trump's saying, here's a Georgetown professor who can help explain it—but done conversationally. It's funny, because you still carry that credential with you; you're still saying, “here's how I know this stuff.” And, of course, later on I'm going to write about this for Lawfare, I'm going to write about it on my Substack, I'm going to put it out as personal content. But in this moment the most impactful thing I think I can do is discuss it live with people who are watching it in a community, trying to make sense of it together. That's something streamers in particular are very good at—they bring people together to watch jointly.I don't know how many people have watched a Destiny stream, or, on the other side of the spectrum, a Hasan Piker stream, but it's the same appeal: people who are in a community, like-minded, enjoying that back-and-forth, not only listening to the streamer but participating in the community itself. It reminds me of being in New York in my 20s, gathering at someone's house to watch TV together on a Sunday night—that feeling of experiencing something together, reacting to it together. When you watch a news broadcast by yourself, it's not like that. When you're watching a stream, there's as much back-and-forth and community-building happening among the audience as there is between the audience and the influencer or streamer. That creates a feeling of belonging and participation, and when you want to ask people to take political action, there's a feeling that we're all in this together, we all want to see this thing accomplished. You see this when you watch political streamers across the spectrum doing fundraisers and things like that—“how can we galvanize and generate momentum?”This isn't limited to partisan politics—you can do the same with issue-based advocacy as well.One of the reasons institutions [struggle here] is a fear of relinquishing control. A lot of institutions are taught to stay on message at all times—if you hand your message to somebody else, you lose control of it. But you can't tell them what to say. They're going to say what they want to say. They might get it wrong. But counterintuitively, I think that actually generates more dialogue, more attention, and provides you with a way to accomplish something you might not be good at yourself. Your CEO might not actually be the best face to talk about this thing—the 20 year old you hired, who is much more comfortable with this, is actually the person who should be out there engaging, putting out the message, or working with a creator or creator lab and essentially briefing them like you would brief media: “here's your embargoed copy of my report, I'd love it if you talked about it, no pressure, no requirements, this is just me providing you with information about something we've done that I think your audience might care about—and then wherever it goes, goes.”Belvedere: And as you note in the report, this is already the cultural air a lot of these younger staffers breathe—they have to code-switch to seem more “professional,” to be someone who …DiResta: … doesn't curse on Twitter.Belvedere: Exactly. But that also gives them the advantage of understanding the discourse, the environment, the information landscape, far more natively. So they can put a message that the CEO might want in a way that will have more effectiveness.I want to bring up two of the case studies I found fascinating—David French and Zohran Mamdani. David French was trying to bring a [pluralist], depoliticized message into a very hostile, ideologically policed, polarized evangelical base. Zohran Mamdani, now the mayor of New York, built his campaign almost entirely on vibes, aesthetics, joy—messaging, sure, but messaging that met people where they were and responded to what they actually needed. One of those approaches got crushed by the gatekeepers; the other was able to bypass them. It's not that one was effective and the other wasn't—David French ran up against a buzzsaw that no Christian thinker, however winsome or articulate, probably would have fared well against. Mamdani certainly was very skilled in how he approached his campaign and carried it out. In these two profiles, is there a lesson there about why one got crushed and the other persevered?DiResta: It's very interesting, and I've thought about this a lot. So, first, some of it is: How heavy a hold does the establishment party have on the space you're speaking into? Are you entering fresh ground? Mamdani, of course, ran against an egregiously terrible establishment candidate. I mean, it was one of those “is this really the best we've got to offer?”Mamdani's politics weren't mine, but I'm from New York—I lived there for 30 years, still have a house and family in Brooklyn—and I watched that race, and I just thought … every time I saw Mamdani content in my feed, and there was a lot of it, because I'm still plugged into New York, I was like, “this is so inspiring. This is a person where that love of the city comes through.” I remember he did a thing with a bodega cat. I had a bodega cat, and it was amazing! In a way, the politics and the policy was almost secondary to the feeling that you were watching something genuine.The candidate he was running against—well, there were two, of course, including Curtis Sliwa, who really nailed it on the “genuine” front. I mean, my God, that man gave interviews that left my jaw on the floor—where he's like, “here's how they're trying to pay me to drop out of the race, let's talk about that.” It's a very New York political moment.Belvedere: Zero filter.DiResta: Oh, no filter. I mean, Cuomo doesn't lack a filter either. I'm New York Italian too—you know that. Someone should send him to his dean!It was wild watching that race and seeing what landed with the public. There was such a sense of “God, we need something new! We just need something new”—and that landed, I think, in a way, more than anything else, regardless of your opinions on specific policies. It was the way in which he turned people who found him personally appealing into organizers—fans became organizers. That's really the story of the Mamdani campaign. With French, by contrast, top-down control still held much more strongly. I don't think many New Yorkers love the Democratic Party establishment enough to say, “we really need to listen to what they tell us”—if anything, an official endorsement had become a bit of a negative signal by that point. That's at least how I experienced New York politics.Mamdani was also an unknown quantity, French was much more of a known quantity, so he had this experience of gatekeepers who used character assassination to attack, not so much his ideas as his person—finding things he'd said or done previously and using them to attack him personally and make it costly to associate with him and his ideas by extension. Once an establishment is well-networked enough to mount that kind of opposition, it's much harder to win. French was moving into a hostile, contested, polarized space. Mamdani, by contrast, faced an establishment, in his case the more centrist wing of the Democratic Party, that simply didn't have the social media clout or networks to make its attacks land. It was a very different dynamic.That's why we put French in a section of the report about figuring out what kind of space you're actually trying to participate in. Are you putting forward a policy or a vision that's going to be actively and adversarially rebuffed by very entrenched, well-networked forces? Or are you moving into a much fresher space—a new issue, a new take, less contested ground—where you are potentially going to run a very different kind of strategy?Belvedere: I think that's a great point. Trump is a good example in the political space—the GOP establishment was set against him initially. They had money behind other candidates, Jeb Bush chief among them, and had a war chest that was insane backing Jeb Bush. And that was … nothing in the end. It didn't amount to anything. All the work French had done in the past, caring about the Bill of Rights, about a constitutionally constrained vision of limited government—the intellectual energy the Republican Party used to draw on more heavily—had given way to something else. David went a different direction than a lot of evangelicals did, and there are enough of them to effectively block him now.Whereas Mamdani, I think, was able to bypass a lot of that resistance because there was more overlap with what a standard Democratic candidate might have offered—a lot of the same campaign substance, just a different approach on some issues. There were enough people who weren't already set against him. That's unlike the evangelical space, where mentioning French's name is practically like saying “Voldemort.” Which is sad, because on a lot of issues, especially theological tenets, there's still broad alignment between them.This is something that your report presses people to internalize: the idea that who you're speaking to matters, and how you're speaking to them matters. That's a lesson a lot of liberals still need to work out. There's a lot of trial and error right now, a lot of figuring out how to be effective in this new information landscape. But the report is genuinely helpful. I imagine a lot of people will read it and think: “okay, everything I thought I knew about what it takes to project credibility has been turned on its head, and I need to account for that or risk being left behind.” That's what makes it such an important read.DiResta: Thank you. We really tried to make it as tangible as possible—which is why it's long. We went back and forth at the end about whether to release different versions for different audiences: a philanthropist version, a C-suite version, a version for op-ed writers. In the end we put it all out as one document—you can always Control-F to find what's most relevant to you, there's an index, and AI can digest it too.But, in all seriousness, though, there has to be a shift. You mentioned Trump. His energy came from the internet. He was so good at tapping into … because he was almost a meme candidate at first; people didn't quite believe he'd be a serious thing. This was right around the time … I bring up Gamergate not for its specifics, but because it was a moment when people started realizing the internet could actually affect the real world. The Arab Spring was another one of those moments—realizing that people's voices online could genuinely accomplish things.“When you have this sclerotic sense that nothing happens in the United States, that no one is listening to you, that no change happens, that nothing you want to see in the world will ever be realized, that's an intoxicating moment. ‘Damn, we are the media now'—that phrase is literally about empowerment, the sense that someone powerful is listening to you and making something happen. That's the complete opposite of the faceless institution where you leave a comment in a form and never hear back, where nothing ever changes, your taxes don't change, your cost of living doesn't change. That's what Mamdani tapped into as well: ‘we are actually going to change things, we are going to do things, the world is going to be different starting day one, and here's how it's going to happen.' Whatever you think of the man's politics, he nailed that sense of empowerment—'this is a movement, and you're part of it.'” — Renée DiRestaYou mentioned my book. I'll give a shameless plug here—but only because the paperback just came out and it has a new epilogue. If you bought the Kindle version, go refresh it, because the new epilogue gets into exactly this. What was the appeal of DOGE? It was that the government was going to be transformed—that's great, it's a huge incentive for people who cared about that. Even liberals were like, “Maybe it's time to shake some stuff up.” But what DOGE did for the public, particularly Trump's base and Elon's base, was this: they'd tweet out some grant they found ridiculous, often with no real idea what it actually did, and Elon would respond with something like “killed,” “nuked,” “through the wood chipper,” about USAID.Belvedere: And a lot of those actually got Community-Noted on themselves—people pointing out that he was egregiously misreading the grant. They got fact-checked by their own system.DiResta: They did—but it didn't actually matter, because what mattered to the people participating was: “I said a thing, somebody powerful listened to me, and then a change happened.” When you have this sclerotic sense that nothing happens in the United States, that no one is listening to you, that no change happens, that nothing you want to see in the world will ever be realized, that's an intoxicating moment. “Damn, we are the media now”—that phrase is literally about empowerment, the sense that someone powerful is listening to you and making something happen. That's the complete opposite of the faceless institution where you leave a comment in a form and never hear back, where nothing ever changes, your taxes don't change, your cost of living doesn't change.That's what Mamdani tapped into as well: “we are actually going to change things, we are going to do things, the world is going to be different starting day one, and here's how it's going to happen.” Whatever you think of the man's politics, he nailed that sense of empowerment—“this is a movement, and you're part of it.” That's the same thing Trump tapped into online back in 2015: “we're going to change things, this is your movement, and I'm going to accomplish this for you.” Which can go off in some weird ways, when you look at exclusionary populism and authoritarianism, which you guys at ISMA focus so much on.I want to mention one more thing. In San Francisco, we recalled the school board: a very local, niche race that ended up becoming a story of national attention, for the same reason—people saying, “we've got to change something, what can we do?” The groups that grew out of that were advancing a very liberal policy—this was not the far-left, not the far-right doing it: “we'd like eighth-grade algebra back, we'd like schools reopened.” This is late 2021. “It would be nice for my kid not to have three years of no school.”It was an unapologetically liberal politics that was powering that, and it was unapologetic in how it framed itself, how it spoke, how it used social media. And I thought, “Okay, now maybe liberals will see”—again, not Democrats, but liberals, people who believe in the core liberal values—“people will start to see that there's real power in direct, unapologetic appeals.” And it is my sincere hope that we start to see that in a movement that rises to push back against the excesses of MAHA and things like that.[In the new edition of my book], the new epilogue is really about how these dynamics play out once a group is actually in power—because a lot of people think of social media as a tool of insurgency, and once you're in power, that's supposedly the end of it. What's been interesting watching Trump and DOGE is that they've kept that cycle going: people still believe they're having an impact, shaping policy.We saw a version of this with Obama, who was a very digital candidate—he rose to power on a lot of popular digital support, did interviews with content creators, that kind of thing. There were creators in the White House—my friend Destin Sandlin, who runs Smarter Every Day, did an interview with Obama. There was a sense that the administration was beginning to engage with new media, but there was still a divide: the new media was media, engaging with the president on certain terms, at certain times, in certain venues. What you're seeing from this administration is they're literally the press corps, seated front and center. Some of them are even working as special government employees, which is wild—and there are some real ethical issues there. But there's still a sense that the online movement, that source of validation that propelled someone to a win, is actively in there, working with them on governance and policy.Is that a mirage, to some extent? Yes—there's a veneer of them wanting to do something anyway and using online narratives to justify it. And I'd argue that once an influencer becomes a special government employee, they're no longer independent—they're speaking as an agent of the government at that point. But setting that aside, you really do see the way those boundaries are shifting, and that sense of personal participation is what keeps this particular populist movement feeling valuable to its participants.Belvedere: I remember when Madison Cawthorn infamously hired only comms people rather than policy people, and a lot of people in conservative-adjacent spaces saw that as the start of a new era. The model is no longer Paul Ryan-ing your way through, nor is it about governing—Cawthorn was actively, explicitly building a kind of image-only candidacy, seeing how far that element alone could carry him. It didn't carry him very far; a few things tripped him up, like, hilariously, a visit to Hitler's home. But he was building toward being a comms-only operation as the only thing that matters now. When Trump did the whole Alligator Alcatraz stunt, that's the same understanding at work—it's an ongoing comms exercise, you have to keep the performative aspect going, because the campaign never really stops.We're out of time. Thank you so much, Renée.Thanks for checking out The UnPopulist! Subscribe to support our project.© The UnPopulist, 2026Follow us on Bluesky, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X.We welcome your reactions and replies. Please adhere to our comments policy. Get full access to The UnPopulist at www.theunpopulist.net/subscribe

Renée DiResta discusses what she recommends that individuals and groups, including governments, do to advance their interests considering the good and the evils of social media. Her comments are based primarily on research summarized in her 2024 book on Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality, updated in 2026 with the addition of an epilogue. In November 2014, a month before a major measles outbreak began in Disneyland, DiResta was the mother of a 12-month-old studying data on vaccination rates in California. She was alarmed that vaccination rates had been falling. She wrote a blog post about that. Then she called her representative in the California state assembly and asked about the prospects for eliminating the personal-belief exemption from vaccination requirements for children in day care and schools in California. She was told that the anti-vaxxers were too strong. After the Disneyland outbreak, she called back and got a different answer: A representative who was an MD had introduced a bill "to eliminate the personal-belief exemption" to the requirement to vaccinate children entering pre-school and school. Vaccines are never 100% effective. Just over half of those infected from the Disneyland outbreak had been vaccinated, proving that        each unvaccinated human threatens everyone else, though the threats to the vaccinated are substantially less than to the unvaccinated. DiResta publicly supported the bill to eliminate the personal-belief exemption and drew the ire of leading anti-vaxxers, few of whom lived in California. That led to death threats, congressional subpoenas, lawsuits, and legal bills exceeding a million dollars. She soon figured out that most of the anti-vaccine comments came from out of state, some by bots. That work morphed into a job as the Technical Research Manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory between 2019 and 2024 and then to her current position at Georgetown University. That work produced a 2022 report by The Virality Project with DiResta as lead editor that documents how anti-vaccine narratives on social media dramatically reduced the effectiveness of public health efforts. It also produced a 2024 report on "Shaping the Future of Social Media with Middleware", which she edited with Luke Hogg, and a 2025 report on "For Expertise to Matter, Nonpartisan Institutions Need New Communications Strategies", co-authored by Rachel Kleinfeld. DiResta is interviewed by Spencer Graves. Copyright 2026 Renée DiRista and Spencer Graves, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) 4.0 international license.

DOCKET ALERTS:   House Speaker Mike Johnson sent everyone home for vacation rather than deal with a dissident faction in his own caucus that keeps demanding a vote on the vote-suppressing SAVE America Act Trump keeps braying for.   A federal judge in New Hampshire became the tenth to dismiss a DOJ lawsuit seeking full, unredacted state voter rolls — or eleventh if you include the Sixth Circuit.   In 2024, Florida sued to force DHS to bulk verify citizenship data so states could "audit" their voter rolls. In 2025, DHS entered into a "settlement" with Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and Indiana agreeing to do it, and handing power to a Trump-appointed judge in Florida to ensure compliance. But that database has now been enjoined by a judge in DC for violating the Privacy Act of 1974, so Florida is moving to enforce the settlement in Florida.    And in DC, Judge Emmet Sullivan barred the Post Office from complying with Trump's executive order requiring the mailman to claw back ballots from any voter not on an approved list. This order violates a 2021 settlement the government made with the NAACP after Trump's last postmaster general tried to mess with mail-in ballots.   A judge in Louisiana has dismissed a lawsuit against several academics associated with the now-shuttered Stanford Internet Observatory. The online wingnut plaintiffs alleged that they had been "censored" by scholars who pointed out that they were violating Facebook's TOS.   Former CIA Director John Brennan is suing Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in DC, seeking an injunction forcing prosecutors investigating him to retain all records. He hasn't been indicted yet, but, with Trump's minions planning a giant conspiracy indictment in Florida, he wants an order to preserve evidence for an eventual motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution.   Prosecutors trying to convict a former US Attorney in Florida for emailing herself a copy of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on the stolen documents case were forced to admit that they'd done the exact same thing, sending copies of it to defense counsel in discovery disclosures.    MAIN SHOW:   The Supreme Court issued its final opinions of the term.    In Trump v. Barbara, a narrow majority upheld birthright citizenship, refusing to invent some kind of exception to the plain terms of the 14th Amendment.   The conservative justices continued to tear down barriers to corruption in politics, invalidating the Federal Elections Campaign Act's bar on campaigns coordinating spending with outside committees in NRSC v. FEC.    And in West Virginia v. BPJ/Little v. Hecox, the six conservatives allowed states to ban trans athletes from sports.   Finally, we discuss a new class action lawsuit challenging labor practices at the online gaming platform Roblox for violating child labor laws.   US v. New Hampshire Secretary of State [Voter rolls] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71453646/united-states-v-nh-secretary-of-state/   State of Florida v. DHS [SAVE voter verification database] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69271601/state-of-florida-v-department-of-homeland-security   Hines v. Stamos [Stanford Internet Observatory] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67310145/hines-v-stamos   NAACP v. US [Mail-in ballots] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17461792/national-association-for-the-advancement-of-colored-people-v-united-states   Brennan v. Blanche https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73562893/brennan-v-blanche/   SCOTUS Trump v. Barbara (14th Amdt birthright citizenship) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf   NRSC v. FEC (PAC Coordination/campaign finance) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-621_h315.pdf   West Virginia v. BPJ/Little v. Hecox (trans athletes) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-43_2b35.pdf   Doe B.D. v. Roblox Corp. [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73332976/doe-bd-v-roblox-corporation/   Eurogamer, Roblox Studio boss: children making money on the platform isn't exploitation, it's a gift [April 4, 2024] https://www.eurogamer.net/roblox-studio-boss-children-making-money-on-the-platform-isnt-exploitation-its-a-gift Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Late on Friday, June 12, Anthropic announced it had received a letter from the United States Department of Commerce notifying the company that the government had issued an export control directive forcing it to suspend all access to its AI models Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including Anthropic's own foreign-national employees. To comply, the company disabled access to both models for all its customers. The Wall Street Journal called the episode "one of the most powerful examples yet of US government intervention in the AI race."The White House move has left many experts baffled. And, it is raising alarms in foreign capitals about the wisdom of relying on American AI, suggesting the US will operate ad hoc, with access to advanced models revoked on a case-by-case basis. Against that backdrop, a group of cybersecurity leaders organized by Alex Stamos has urged the administration to reverse course in an open letter. Currently, Stamos is chief product officer at an AI security startup called Corridor. Previously, he was chief security officer at Facebook, before he left to found the Stanford Internet Observatory. Justin Hendrix caught up with him on Tuesday, June 16.

In this episode, I'm joined by Renée DiResta, Associate Research Professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy and author of Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality, who studies social media, online manipulation, AI, misinformation, and how messages move across the internet.This conversation started with a simple question: how do we stay safe online? But it quickly became about something much bigger. How do we protect our attention? How do we know what is real? How do we keep our values intact in online spaces that are often designed to make us reactive, anxious, outraged, or hooked?Renée explains how social media platforms are not neutral. They are built around growth, engagement, data, advertising, and keeping us there. Every scroll, pause, like, and click teaches the system more about us, which means the content we see is not random. It is selected, tested, and pushed towards us because the platform thinks it might hold our attention.We talk about AI slop, scams, fake images, old videos being recirculated as new, online manipulation, audience capture, online conflict, and why it is becoming harder to tell the difference between what is real, what is fake, and what is technically real but being used in a misleading way.One of the biggest ideas from this conversation is that discernment is now a practice. It is not just about fact-checking something after the fact. It is about noticing when something is trying to bypass your judgement in the first place.Renée also shares how she talks to her own children about technology, online safety, chat platforms, privacy, and the importance of keeping communication open when something goes wrong.This is a conversation about the internet, but really it is about agency. About slowing down, paying attention, and remembering that a bountiful life is one where your time, your attention, and your choices still belong to you.Episode HighlightsHow Renée came to study social media, misinformation and online manipulationWhat platforms and algorithms are designed to do with our attentionWhy AI is making scams, fake content and deception harder to spotHow to tell the difference between what is real, true and misleadingWhy discernment is now an essential life skillHow the internet can make us more reactive, performative and disconnected from our valuesWhat audience capture means for creators and online behaviourHow to talk to children about privacy, trust and online safetyWhy a healthier relationship with technology begins with awareness, not fearTimestamps00:00 Why the internet makes everything feel urgent01:35 Renée's path into studying social media and misinformation09:18 What platforms and algorithms are really designed to do18:10 Online communities, loneliness and rabbit holes19:45 AI scams, fake content and online deception26:51 Discernment, truth and learning to pause before reacting31:08 Online manipulation and how new technology gets exploited40:12 Audience capture and staying authentic online47:53 Online behaviour, values and taking back your attention55:33 Kids, online safety and open conversations about technology01:00:18 AI chatbots, companionship and emotional risk01:04:23 What it means to Renée to live a bountiful lifeGuest BioRenée DiResta is an Associate Research Professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy and the author of Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality. Her work focuses on adversarial abuse online, including social media manipulation, misinformation, scams, AI-generated content, influence operations and child safety. Before joining Georgetown, she was the research director at the Stanford Internet Observatory, where she studied the abuse of online platforms and how digital systems shape public conversation.Bountifull Podcast Bountifull is a podcast exploring joy, wellbeing, creativity, connection and what it means to live a more meaningful life.

CannCon and Ghost open Tuesday with the AP officially calling the LA mayoral race for Nithya Raman over Spencer Pratt, with Jesse Watters accidentally calling it the "next selection" live on Fox News. The LA absentee verification website goes down for maintenance in the middle of the ballot curing period while Pratt voters report their ballots are not showing as counted, and CannCon notes this is the EIP and Stanford Internet Observatory's Venezuela-Smartmatic psyop being deployed again on cue. Ghost drives the geopolitics segment with a story that has been building since early in the first Trump term: the Pentagon has raised Israel's counterintelligence threat level to "critical," with the DIA issuing a formal assessment that Israeli intelligence installed surveillance software on US defense personnel's phones in Israel. The three named surveillance targets are Witkoff, Elbridge Colby, and Michael DiMino, and Ghost delivers a full profile of all three, showing their appointment was a deliberate signal that Trump was never doing what the neocons and the Israeli lobby claimed he was doing. Ghost connects it back to his June 2023 first Badlands appearance predicting the entire Israeli-Iran operation, and explains why Iran's hypersonic missile program is what actually keeps Israel up at night.

As we continue our summer programming around a specific theme in the headlines, this week we're focusing on the subject of truth in media with previous Bulletin guests Chris Stirewalt, Francis Haugen, Renee DiResta, and Francis Collins. This episode of The Bulletin weaves together three distinct conversations exploring the death of local reporting, the rise of algorithmic echo chambers, and a practical blueprint for how Christians can navigate the news with wisdom and discernment. GO DEEPER WITH THE BULLETIN: Join the conversation at our Substack.  Find us on YouTube.  Rate and review the show in your podcast app of choice.  ABOUT THE GUESTS: Chris Stirewalt is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where he focuses on American politics, voting trends, public opinion, and the media. He is concurrently a contributing editor and weekly columnist for The Dispatch, and the host of The Hill Sunday with Chris Stirewalt on NewsNation. A well-known political commentator, Mr. Stirewalt is the author of Broken News: Why the Media Rage Machine Divides America and How to Fight Back. Francis Collins, MD, PhD, served as director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden. Prior to that, he led the Human Genome Project at NIH, coordinating a consortium of laboratories to produce the first ever complete sequence of human DNA in 2003. Collins's research has led to landmark discoveries of disease genes and helped pioneer a multitude of therapies for many diseases. Renee DiResta  is a professor, writer and former research manager at Stanford Internet Observatory. DiResta has written about pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, terrorism, and state-sponsored information warfare. Frances Haugen is an American data scientist and product manager who became a prominent whistleblower in 2021 after disclosing thousands of internal Facebook documents to the SEC and The Wall Street Journal. She highlighted that Facebook prioritized profit over safety, fostering hate and misinformation. ABOUT THE BULLETIN:  The Bulletin is a twice-weekly news analysis podcast from Christianity Today, with editor-at-large Russell Moore. Each episode offers commentary on current events and headlining news with a roundtable of premier guests, and shares a Christian perspective on issues that are shaping our world   The Bulletin listeners get 25% off CT. Go to https://orderct.com/THEBULLETIN to learn more.    “The Bulletin” is a production of Christianity Today Host: Leslie Thompson Associate Producers: Alexa Burke and Crystal Dady   Editing and Mix: Kevin Morris Graphic Design: Rick Szuecs Music: Dan Phelps  Executive Producer: Erik Petrik  Senior Producer: Matt Stevens Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to In Reality, the podcast about truth, disinformation, and the media with Eric Schurenberg, longtime journalist and media executive, now the founder of the Alliance for Trust in Media.If you want to understand how we got to this moment, a moment in which most Americans say they can't tell what's true online anymore, when loud minorities can manufacture the appearance of mass consensus, when we have retreated from a shared sense of facts to our own bespoke realities, let me introduce you to Renée DiResta. Renée has been a warrior for truth in these polarized times longer than almost anyone. She mapped anti-vaccine networks on Facebook in 2013. At the Stanford Internet Observatory, she exposed state-sponsored influence operations and for her trouble, she has been slandered before Congress, subpoenaed and doxed and harassed. Her book, Invisible Rulers, is an encyclopedic account of what happened to us all when the ancient human rumor mill met the modern machinery of networked propaganda. She's now a professor at Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy and she's still very much in the fight. Renée and Eric talk about how ordinary people get pulled into false narratives, how it feels to be targeted by powerful people living out fake and cynical narratives, and how AI is rewriting the rules of influence. And why, despite everything, Renée hasn't given up the fight. And now here's Renée de Resta.Website - free episode transcriptswww.in-reality.fmAlliance for Trust in Mediaalliancefortrust.comProduced by Tom Platts at Sound Sapiensoundsapien.com

From September 9, 2021: Let's say you're a freedom-loving American fed up with Big Tech's effort to censor your posts. Where can you take your business? One option is Parler—the social media platform that became notorious for its use by the Capitol rioters. Another is Gettr—a new site started by former Trump aide Jason Miller.Unfortunately, both platforms have problems. They don't work very well. They might leak your personal data. They're full of spam. And they seem less than concerned about hosting some of the internet's worst illegal content. Can it be that some content moderation is necessary after all?Today, we're bringing you another episode of our Arbiters of Truth series on the online information ecosystem. Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with David Thiel, the big data architect and chief technical officer of the Stanford Internet Observatory. With his colleagues at Stanford, David has put together reports on the inner workings of both Parler and Gettr. They talked about how these websites work (and don't), the strange contours of what both platforms are and aren't willing to moderate, and what we should expect from the odd world of “alt-tech.”To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The Bulletin, producer and moderator Clarissa Moll talks with Knox Thames about how governments can use AI to hamper religious freedom and persecute religious minorities. Mike Cosper and Renée DiResta discuss the ways people attempt to manipulate, harass, or target others using artificial intelligence. And associate producer Alexa Burke chats with CT's Bonnie Kristian about her skepticism of AI tools being used at church.  GO DEEPER WITH THE BULLETIN: - Join the conversation at our Substack. - Find us on YouTube. - Rate and review the show in Apple Podcasts. ABOUT THE GUESTS:   Knox Thames is an international human rights lawyer and advocate who served for 20 years in the US government across multiple administrations, most recently in the Obama and Trump administrations as a State Department special envoy for religious minorities in the Middle East and South/Central Asia. He is currently a senior fellow at Pepperdine University. Renée DiResta is an associate research professor at Georgetown University and a former research manager at Stanford Internet Observatory. DiResta has written about pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, terrorism, and state-sponsored information warfare. Bonnie Kristian is the editorial director of ideas and books at Christianity Today and a fellow at the think tank Defense Priorities. She is the author of Untrustworthy: The Knowledge Crisis Breaking Our Brains, Polluting Our Politics, and Corrupting Christian Community and A Flexible Faith: Rethinking What It Means to Follow Jesus Today. Her writing has been published at outlets including The New York Times, The Week, USA Today, CNN, Politico, and others. ABOUT THE BULLETIN: The Bulletin is a twice-weekly politics and current events show from Christianity Today moderated by Clarissa Moll, with senior commentary from Russell Moore (Christianity Today's editor in chief) and Mike Cosper (director, CT Media). Each week, the show explores current events and breaking news and shares a Christian perspective on issues that are shaping our world. We also offer special one-on-one conversations with writers, artists, and thought leaders whose impact on the world brings important significance to a Christian worldview, like Bono, Sharon McMahon, Harrison Scott Key, Frank Bruni, and more.  The Bulletin listeners get 25 percent off CT. Go to https://orderct.com/THEBULLETIN to learn more. “The Bulletin” is a production of Christianity Today Producer: Clarissa Moll Associate Producer: Alexa Burke Editing and Mix: Kevin Morris Music: Dan Phelps Executive Producers: Erik Petrik and Mike Cosper Senior Producer: Matt Stevens Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We're making our way through a time of extreme disruption, led by rapid transformation in technology, especially in how we communicate information. According to our special guest Renée DiResta, the way power and influence have been profoundly transformed reveals how a virtual rumor mill of niche propagandists increasingly shapes public opinion. By revealing the machinery and dynamics of the interplay between influencers, algorithms, and online crowds, DiResta vividly illustrates the way propagandists deliberately undermine belief in the fundamental legitimacy of institutions that make society work. Find the program online here. This program is part of the series in partnership with Florida Humanities — “UNUM: Democracy Reignited,” a multi-year digital offering exploring the past, present and future of the American idea — as it exists on paper, in the hearts of our people, and as it manifests (or sometimes fails to manifest) in our lives. The Village Square is a proud member of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Funding for this podcast was provided through a grant from Florida Humanities with funds from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Any views, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this program do not necessarily represent those of Florida Humanities or the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Renée DiResta joined the Stanford Internet Observatory to analyze how propaganda spreads online. But in 2023, she went from studying the online disinformation machine to becoming its target. We dive into what happened when a right-wing conspiracy made Renée its villain, as well as how disinformation has changed over the last three presidential elections and where Renée is finding hope for a better future online. Grow your business–no matter what stage you’re in. Sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period at SHOPIFY.COM/paradise Visit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency! Support for this podcast is made possible by Gordon and Dona Crawford, who believe that quality journalism makes Los Angeles a better place to live.

Renée DiResta joined the Stanford Internet Observatory to analyze how propaganda spreads online. But in 2023, she went from studying the online disinformation machine to becoming its target. We dive into what happened when a right-wing conspiracy made Renée its villain, as well as how disinformation has changed over the last three presidential elections and where Renée is finding hope for a better future online. Grow your business–no matter what stage you’re in. Sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period at SHOPIFY.COM/paradise Visit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency! Support for this podcast is made possible by Gordon and Dona Crawford, who believe that quality journalism makes Los Angeles a better place to live.

Renée DiResta joined the Stanford Internet Observatory to analyze how propaganda spreads online. But in 2023, she went from studying the online disinformation machine to becoming its target. We dive into what happened when a right-wing conspiracy made Renée its villain, as well as how disinformation has changed over the last three presidential elections and where Renée is finding hope for a better future online. Grow your business–no matter what stage you’re in. Sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period at SHOPIFY.COM/paradise Visit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency! Support for this podcast is made possible by Gordon and Dona Crawford, who believe that quality journalism makes Los Angeles a better place to live.

Renée DiResta joined the Stanford Internet Observatory to analyze how propaganda spreads online. But in 2023, she went from studying the online disinformation machine to becoming its target. We dive into what happened when a right-wing conspiracy made Renée its villain, as well as how disinformation has changed over the last three presidential elections and where Renée is finding hope for a better future online. Grow your business–no matter what stage you’re in. Sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period at SHOPIFY.COM/paradise Visit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency! Support for this podcast is made possible by Gordon and Dona Crawford, who believe that quality journalism makes Los Angeles a better place to live.Support LAist Today: https://LAist.com/join

Renée DiResta joined the Stanford Internet Observatory to analyze how propaganda spreads online. But in 2023, she went from studying the online disinformation machine to becoming its target. We dive into what happened when a right-wing conspiracy made Renée its villain, as well as how disinformation has changed over the last three presidential elections and where Renée is finding hope for a better future online. Grow your business–no matter what stage you’re in. Sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period at SHOPIFY.COM/paradise Visit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency! Support for this podcast is made possible by Gordon and Dona Crawford, who believe that quality journalism makes Los Angeles a better place to live.

Renée DiResta joined the Stanford Internet Observatory to analyze how propaganda spreads online. But in 2023, she went from studying the online disinformation machine to becoming its target. We dive into what happened when a right-wing conspiracy made Renée its villain, as well as how disinformation has changed over the last three presidential elections and where Renée is finding hope for a better future online. Grow your business–no matter what stage you’re in. Sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period at SHOPIFY.COM/paradise Visit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency! Support for this podcast is made possible by Gordon and Dona Crawford, who believe that quality journalism makes Los Angeles a better place to live.

Renée DiResta joined the Stanford Internet Observatory to analyze how propaganda spreads online. But in 2023, she went from studying the online disinformation machine to becoming its target. We dive into what happened when a right-wing conspiracy made Renée its villain, as well as how disinformation has changed over the last three presidential elections and where Renée is finding hope for a better future online. Grow your business–no matter what stage you’re in. Sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period at SHOPIFY.COM/paradise Visit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency! Support for this podcast is made possible by Gordon and Dona Crawford, who believe that quality journalism makes Los Angeles a better place to live.

The information environment in which Americans form and discuss their political views has gotten weird. Walter Cronkite is gone. The editorial pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal have lost influence to podcasters, social media influencers, and internet conspiracy theorists. Trump's rise, and return to power, was in large part fueled by figures on the far-right who knew how to take advantage of this changed environment in a way liberals haven't yet figured out.This means that, if liberalism is to have a political future, liberals need to understand how media today looks nothing like media twenty years ago. And there's no one better at explaining how weird things have become, how they got that way, and how we can navigate through it than Renée DiResta. She's an Associate Research Professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown. Prior to that, she was the technical research manager at Stanford Internet Observatory. And she's the author of the indispensable book Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality.Current Accounts: The Hinrich Foundation Trade PodcastHinrich Foundation is a unique Asia-based philanthropic organization that works to...Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifyDiscuss this episode with the host and your fellow listeners in the ReImagining Liberty Reddit community: https://www.reddit.com/r/ReImaginingLiberty/ If you enjoy ReImagining Liberty and want to listen to episodes free of ads and sponsorships, become a supporter. Learn more here: https://www.aaronrosspowell.com/upgrade I also encourage you to check out my companion newsletter, where I write about the kinds of ideas we discuss on this show. You can find it on my website at ⁠⁠www.aaronrosspowell.com⁠⁠. Produced by ⁠Landry Ayres⁠. Podcast art by ⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠. Music by ⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠.

Jimmy Carter, the Metaverse, and Congress check-in. Find us on Youtube. This week, Mike and Clarissa welcome Daniel Silliman (senior editor, news, Christianity Today) to reflect on the public's perception of Jimmy Carter since his death. Then, we check in on the latest in Congress with Christianity Today's Harvest Prude. Finally, 2021 Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen and research professor Renée DiResta (Georgetown University) join us to explore Meta's move to remove fact-checking.    GO DEEPER WITH THE BULLETIN: Email us with your favorite segment from today's show at podcasts@christianitytoday.com. We want to hear your COVID-19 reflection. Send a written response or voice memo here. Grab some Bulletin merch! Find us on YouTube. Rate and review the show in your podcast app of choice. ABOUT THE GUESTS:  Daniel Silliman is a journalist and a historian. He is the news editor for Christianity Today, the author of a history of bestselling evangelical fiction, and teaches humanities at Milligan University.  Frances Haugen is an American product manager, data engineer, scientist, and whistleblower. She disclosed tens of thousands of Facebook's internal documents to the Securities and Exchange Commission and The Wall Street Journal in 2021. Renée DiResta is a professor, writer and former research manager at Stanford Internet Observatory. DiResta has written about pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, terrorism, and state-sponsored information warfare. Harvest Prude is a CT's national political correspondent and a congressional reporter based in Washington, DC. She is a former reporter for The Dispatch and World, having served there as political reporter for their Washington bureau.  ABOUT THE BULLETIN: The Bulletin is a weekly (and sometimes more!) current events show from Christianity Today hosted and moderated by Clarissa Moll, with senior commentary from Russell Moore (Christianity Today's editor in chief) and Mike Cosper (director, CT Media). Each week, the show explores current events and breaking news and shares a Christian perspective on issues that are shaping our world. We also offer special one-on-one conversations with writers, artists, and thought leaders whose impact on the world brings important significance to a Christian worldview, like Bono, Sharon McMahon, Krista Tippett, Harrison Scott Key, Frank Bruni, and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Send us a textOn today's episode, I am joined by Renée DiResta, the technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, a program dedicated to the study of abuse in information technologies, to talk about her new book "Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality" a book that dives into how our information ecosystem has evolved in the 21st century and how health practitioners and policymakers should engage with misinformation on social media. In our conversation, we cover the difference between misinformation and propaganda and the future of misinformation research under Trump's presidency. InstagramThe Social Chemist (@socialchemistig) • Instagram photos and videosThreadThe Social Chemist (@socialchemistig) on ThreadsSubstackThe Social Chemist Newsletter | SubstackRenée DiResta's BookAmazon.com: Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality: 9781541703377: DiResta, Renee: BooksReferencesMisunderstanding the harms of online misinformation | NatureRecommended Social Chemist EpisodesThe Evolution of Far-Right Terrorism in the 21st Century w/ Bruce Hoffman and Jacob WareHow Susceptible are you to Misinformation? w/ Dr Rakoen MaertensNews Media Literacy: An Educators Tool Against Misinformation w/ DeMario Phipps SmithA New Era in Disinformation: AI Generated Imagery w/ Todd C. Helmus

Renée DiResta is the technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, a cross-disciplinary program of research, teaching and policy engagement for the study of abuse in current information technologies. Renée investigates the spread of narratives across social and media networks, with an interest in understanding how platform algorithms and affordances intersect with user behavior and factional crowd dynamics. She studies how actors leverage the information ecosystem to exert influence, from domestic activists promoting health misinformation and conspiracy theories, to the full-spectrum information operations executed by state actors. She was a 2021 Emerson Fellow and 2018-2019 Mozilla Fellow, a 2017 Presidential Leadership Scholar, a Council on Foreign Relations term member, and a Truman National Security Fellow. She is the author of The Hardware Startup: Building your Product, Business, and Brand and has degrees in Computer Science and Political Science from Stony Brook University.

Join us on FUTUREPROOF. as we dive deep with Renée DiResta, a leading researcher at Stanford Internet Observatory, exploring the intricate web of online misinformation and its impact on society. Renée brings her extensive knowledge from investigating foreign influence operations, conspiracy theories, and the challenges posed by social media moderation to discuss how digital tribalism and bespoke realities are shaping our world.What You'll Learn:Understanding Misinformation: How misinformation spreads through digital platforms and the psychological factors driving its reach.Impact on Society: The consequences of online echo chambers for public discourse and political polarization.Digital Tribalism: Exploring the concept of bespoke realities and how they threaten societal cohesion.Strategies for the Future: Renée's insights on how social media platforms and policymakers can combat the spread of false information.The Role of Education: The importance of digital literacy in empowering the public to navigate misinformation.Episode Highlights:DiResta's Journey: From battling anti-vaccine misinformation to testifying in front of Congress, hear how Renée's career has evolved alongside the rise of digital misinformation.Case Studies: Renée discusses specific examples of misinformation campaigns and their effects, from election interference to public health crises.Looking Ahead: Gain perspective on what the future holds for digital communication and the ongoing fight against misinformation.Call to Action:Check out Renée's book, Invisible Rulers, for a deeper understanding of the forces shaping our digital landscape. Engage with us on social media to share your thoughts and questions about today's discussion.Subscribe & Share:Loved this episode? Subscribe to FUTUREPROOF. for more insights on technology and society, and don't forget to share this episode with your network to spread the word about the importance of understanding and combating misinformation.

Can free speech and content moderation on social media coexist? Jonathan Rauch and Renée DiResta discuss the complexities of content moderation on social media platforms. They explore how platforms balance free expression with the need to moderate harmful content and the consequences of censorship in a digital world. Jonathan Rauch is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of “The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth” and “Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought.” Renée DiResta was the technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory and contributed to the Election Integrity Partnership report and the Virality Project. Her new book is “Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality.” READ THE TRANSCRIPT. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 03:14 Content moderation and free speech 12:33 The Election Integrity Partnership 18:43 What activity does the First Amendment not protect? 21:44 Backfire effect of moderation 26:01 The Virality Project 30:54 Misinformation over the past decade 37:33 Did Trump's Jan 6th speech meet the standard for incitement? 44:12 Double standards of content moderation 01:00:05 Jawboning 01:11:10 Outro Show notes: Election Integrity Partnership report (2021) The Virality Project (2022) Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton (2024) “This Place Rules” (2022) Murthy v. Missouri (2024) “Why Scholars Should Stop Studying 'Misinformation',” by Jacob N. Shapiro and Sean Norton (2024) “FIRE Statement on Free Speech and Social Media” 

As the technical research manager at Stanford Internet Observatory, Renée DiResta studied disinformation and alerted social media companies to violations of their own rules. This opened her up to charges that she was engaging in censorship. Out with a new book, Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality, DiResta discusses those accusations and the difference between disinformation, disliked information, and normal political puffery. She also denies being an active CIA agent, which is exactly what a CIA agent might say. Plus, Donald Trump's cognition needn't be the source of investigation when it's output is the source of so much content. Produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, visit: https://advertisecast.com/TheGist Subscribe to The Gist Subscribe: https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ Follow Mikes Substack at: Pesca Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Last week, the Department of Justice announced major indictments alleging that, among other things, the Kremlin was paying right-wing influencers, like Dave Rubin, Tim Pool, and Benny Johnson, to spread Russian propaganda. The payments were funneled through a Tennessee-based company called Tenet Media, and while Rubin, Pool, and Johnson deny knowledge of the plot ... they don't seem to have asked too many questions about the mysterious benefactor who was supposedly funding Tenet and paying them unseemly large amounts of money. Unfortunately, this is only the latest in a string of foreign influence campaigns coming from Russia, China and Iran and targeting American elections. To break down all the news, Kara is joined by Julia Davis, Alex Stamos, and Brandy Zardrozny. Julia is a columnist for the Daily Beast, an investigative reporter, and the creator of the Russian Media Monitor; Alex is the chief information security officer at SentinelOne, the founder of the Stanford Internet Observatory, and a former chief security officer at Facebook; and Brandi is senior reporter at NBC News who covers the Internet, especially politics, tech, and extremism.  Questions? Comments? Email us at on@voxmedia.com or find Kara on Instagram/Threads as @karaswisher Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's been a busy week in the world of social media and technology platforms. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg sent an odd letter to the House Judiciary Committee apparently disclaiming some of his company's past content moderation efforts. Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France on a wide range of charges involving an investigation into the misuse of his platform. And Elon Musk is engaged in an ongoing battle with Brazilian courts, which have banned access to Twitter (now X) in the country after Musk refused to abide by court orders. These three news stories speak to a common theme: the difficult and uncertain relationship between tech platforms and the governments that regulate them. To make sense of it all, Quinta Jurecic, a Senior Editor at Lawfare, with Matt Perault—the Director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill—and Renée DiResta, author of the new book, “Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality,” and the former technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How information (and misinformation) spreads online continues to change with the media landscape. Renée DiResta and Ryan continue their conversation on the role of podcasts as a medium, the pitfalls of audience capture, and the dynamics of social media silos. They talk about the ethical responsibilities of influencers and podcasters, the influence of personal relationships in media, and the impact of counter speech. Renée DiResta is a technical research manager at Stanford Internet Observatory and has briefed world leaders, advised Congress, the State Department, and a myriad of organizations on how online manipulation can take different forms.

“If you make it trend, you make it true” is a terrifyingly real quote across the cover of Renée DiResta's book, Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality. Renée DiResta studies the many ways that people attempt to manipulate or target others online, similar to what Ryan talks about in his first book, Trust Me, I'm Lying. In this episode, Renée and Ryan talk about the shift from traditional journalism ethics to the new realm of social media influence, the psychological impact of online engagement, and the societal consequences of misinformation. Renée DiResta is a technical research manager at Stanford Internet Observatory and has briefed world leaders, advised Congress, the State Department, and a myriad of organizations on how online manipulation can take different forms. Renée's book, Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality, is all about the virtual rumor mill and how niche propagandists can shape public opinion.She was also featured in Netflix's documentary, The Social Dilemma which came out in 2020. You can follow Renée on X @noUpside, or check out her website reneediresta.com

Renée DiResta is one the world's leading experts on online disinformation and propaganda and the author of the new book, Invisible Rulers, The People Who Turn Lies into Reality. About two months ago, DiResta found out her contract as the technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory would not be renewed. What's more, the SIO, one of the foremost academic programs studying abuse online, would be essentially hollowed out. The university blames funding challenges, and says it has “not shut down or dismantled SIO as a result of outside pressure.” However, many journalists and fellow researchers suspect that political pressure from the right, including congressional hearings led by Rep. Jim Jordan and lawsuits from people like Stephen Miller, caused Stanford to cave. Kara and Renée discuss the drama at the SIO; Invisible Rulers; the coordinated effort by the right to target academic researchers who study online propaganda and disinformation; the larger strategy to push back against content moderation by social media platforms; and the role the platforms themselves and their CEOS (looking at you, Elon) play in this fight. Questions? Comments? Email us at on@voxmedia.com or find Kara on Instagram/Threads as @karaswisher Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sam Harris speaks with Renée DiResta about the state of our information landscape. They discuss the difference between influence and propaganda, shifts in communication technology, influencers and closed communities, the asymmetry of passion online and the illusion of consensus, the unwillingness to criticize one's own side, audience capture, what we should have learned from the Covid pandemic, what is unique about vaccines, Renée's work at the Stanford Internet Observatory, her experience of being smeared by Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi, Elon Musk and the Twitter files, the false analogy of social media as a digital public square, the imagined "censorship-industrial complex," the 2024 presidential election, and other topics. If the Making Sense podcast logo in your player is BLACK, you can SUBSCRIBE to gain access to all full-length episodes at samharris.org/subscribe. Learning how to train your mind is the single greatest investment you can make in life. That's why Sam Harris created the Waking Up app. From rational mindfulness practice to lessons on some of life's most important topics, join Sam as he demystifies the practice of meditation and explores the theory behind it.

Share this episode: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/378-digital-delusions Sam Harris speaks with Renée DiResta about the state of our information landscape. They discuss the difference between influence and propaganda, shifts in communication technology, influencers and closed communities, the asymmetry of passion online and the illusion of consensus, the unwillingness to criticize one's own side, audience capture, what we should have learned from the Covid pandemic, what is unique about vaccines, Renée's work at the Stanford Internet Observatory, her experience of being smeared by Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi, Elon Musk and the Twitter files, the false analogy of social media as a digital public square, the imagined "censorship-industrial complex," the 2024 presidential election, and other topics. Renée DiResta is a social media researcher and the author of Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality. Her work focuses on adversarial abuse online, including child safety issues, spammers and scammers, and influence campaigns run by state actors. From 2019 to 2023, she was the Technical Research Manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, a cross-disciplinary program of research, teaching, and policy engagement for the study of abuse in current information technologies. Renée has advised Congress and the executive branch, as well as academic, civic, and business organizations on technology policy and trust & safety topics, including information operations, generative AI, election security, data transparency, and child safety. Website: reneediresta.com Learning how to train your mind is the single greatest investment you can make in life. That’s why Sam Harris created the Waking Up app. From rational mindfulness practice to lessons on some of life’s most important topics, join Sam as he demystifies the practice of meditation and explores the theory behind it.

Today, host Steven Overly talks with Renée DiResta, a former technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, about her book "Invisible Rulers" on online influencers' power. DiResta's work on political advocates versus profit-driven disinformation spreaders sparked controversy after the 2020 election, leading to Stanford dismantling its Internet Observatory and raising concerns about disinformation research ahead of the 2024 election.

"Disinformation. Spam and Scams. Trolls." For those of us paying attention, one thing is clear: We got problems! Fortunately, Renée DiResta is helping with exactly that by studying online manipulation, and what we can do about it. And yeah, we get quite a primer on the concept of "bespoke realities."   We're on Patreon! Join the community:  https://www.patreon.com/politicsandreligion   It would mean so much if you could leave us a review:  https://ratethispodcast.com/goodfaithpolitics    Renée DiResta is the Technical Research Manager at Stanford Internet Observatory. In this conversation we delve into the challenges of misinformation, online manipulation, and the impact of algorithmic curation on public discourse. Renée discusses her career journey, her work on election integrity, and the concept of "bespoke realities." The episode explores how media ecosystems shape our perception and the importance of fostering meaningful dialogue across differing viewpoints.   02:56 Renée DiResta's Background and Career Journey  06:35 The Birth of Vaccinate California  07:22 Facing Harassment and Public Backlash  16:01 Understanding Bespoke Realities  17:44 The Influencer-Algorithm-Crowd Trinity  27:17 The Role of Free Expression in Social Media  29:50 The Complexity of Free Expression and Moderation  31:10 Platform Policies and Government Regulation  32:23 Engaging with Conspiracy Theorists  33:48 Understanding Algorithmic Curation  34:38 Reflecting on January 6th and Political Polarization  39:51 Election Integrity Partnership: An Inside Look  46:22 Recognizing and Combating Propaganda  50:37 Concerns About a Second Trump Term 53:20 Fostering Better Conversations Across Differences  57:08 Engaging on Social Media: Strategies and Reflections   You can also find Corey on all the socials @coreysnathan such as www.threads.net/@coreysnathan.   Talkin' Politics & Religion Without Killin' Each Other is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it.   Very grateful for our sponsor Meza Wealth Management. Reach out to Jorge and his team: www.mezawealth.com   https://www.reneediresta.com/    https://www.threads.net/@renee.diresta 

Has this pod saved America…from phone addiction?! We got Jon Lovett to take a rather extreme version of the Offline challenge in Fiji, AND America's top doctor and friend of the pod Vivek Murthy is now calling for a Surgeon General's warning label on social media platforms. Max and Jon bask in their success, then mourn the dismantling of the Stanford Internet Observatory, the nation's leading mis- and disinformation research organization. Then, Max sits down with longtime tech journalist Brian Merchant to talk about whether AI development is slowing down, why workers should organize against the technology, and what good AI use cases and centaurs have in common.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.racket.newsA seeming win for this site's readers and other opponents of censorship. But is the win illusory?Narrated by Jared Moore

Renée DiResta is the author of Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality. Until the other day, she was one of the brains behind the Stanford Internet Observatory, where she did pioneering work studying Internet information streams how they generate. The day before this podcast was recorded, news broke that Stanford was shutting down—or revamping—the SIO, and DiResta is no longer associated with it. In this conversation with Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes, DiResta talks about how she came to study online information flows, how they work, and how she and her work came to be the subject of one herself.Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Noam Osband of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“If you make it trend, you make it true,” argues online propaganda expert Renée DiResta. Her new book examines what she calls the “invisible rulers” of today — influencers, algorithms and crowds. While some influencers have made good on social media's promises of media democratization, others saturate our feeds with propaganda, disinformation and rumors that cause IRL harm. These influencers' motivations, DiResta argues, are rooted in profit as much as — if not more than — ideology. We'll talk to DiResta about how content moderation, systems design and policy can prevent and blunt the reach of online propaganda — and how we can strive for consensus in a fractured society. Her new book is “Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality.” Guests: Renée DiResta, former technical research manager, Stanford Internet Observatory

Renée DiResta is the author of Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality. Until the other day, she was one of the brains behind the Stanford Internet Observatory, where she did pioneering work studying Internet information streams how they generate. The day before this podcast was recorded, news broke that Stanford was shutting down—or revamping—the SIO, and DiResta is no longer associated with it. In this conversation with Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes, DiResta talks about how she came to study online information flows, how they work, and how she and her work came to be the subject of one herself.Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Noam Osband of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A uniformidade cultural causada pelos algoritmos, a apropriação de conteúdo jornalístico por ferramentas de busca com IA e o fechamento do Stanford Internet Observatory mostra a fragilidade do equilíbrio online.  Qual custo da conveniência digital? No RESUMIDO #268: no mundo dos filtros todo mundo gosta das mesmas coisas, novas ferramentas de geração de vídeo sintético, buscadores dão calote o jornalismo, observatório de redes sociais é fechado, o fungo comedor de plástico e muito mais! -- -- Todos os links comentados no episódio estão no https://resumido.cc/podcasts/mundo-filtrado-copia-cola-e-calota-vigilancia-nao-vigiada Colabore e ajude o RESUMIDO a seguir em frente! www.catarse.me/resumido

Founder of the Foundation for Freedom Online Mike Benz does victory lap over shuttering of Stanford Internet Observatory, one of the major players in the censorship machinery that played such a devastating role in the 2020 election, and 2021-2022 in the COVID pandemic efforts to censor opinions that turned out ultimately to be true. Well, it is shuttering its doors at least when it comes to efforts to censor political opinion in elections, that is a major victory. Benz discusses consequences from the last four years under President Joe Biden and why the fight against of political censorship isn't over. Additional interview with congressional candidate Abe Hamadeh over 2024 election and if Arizona is in play for republicans.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We had a little bit of everything this evening. The Supreme Court ruled the Bumpstock ban was unconstitutional. Apple is giving it up to OPENAI for their AI solution and it's bothering many. Especially since OPEN AI just hired an ex-NSA chief. Summer is here and along with that it brings out the climate scam stories. We touch on them. The Military draft is now looming due to a new bill being passed by the house. We look at whether or not our 18-26 year olds can handle the gravity of this situation. The Stanford Internet Observatory turns tail dealing a blow to DEI and the woke mindvirus and Jefe takes us on a farm report that leads to concerning water usage for farmers in Idaho.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/whiskey-hell-podcast--5683729/support.

Title: "Happy Birthday President Trump! Exposing the Fallacies and Fighting for Justice" In today's compelling episode of the MG Show, Jeffrey and Shannon celebrate President Trump's birthday and delve into a series of riveting topics that uncover the truth and challenge mainstream narratives. First Hour: Happy Birthday, President Trump!: Join us in celebrating President Trump's birthday with a special segment honoring his legacy and impact. Stanford Internet Observatory Closes: We explore the implications of this closure and what it means for online surveillance and censorship. Joe Biden Faces Bad Press: After years of skirting accountability, Joe Biden begins to face the negative press he deserves, both domestically and internationally. Parkland School Demolition: A reflective review on the day they demolish the school, bringing back memories and discussions on lies and changed testimonies. Second Hour: Who DJT Really Is: Highlighting Trump as a fighter and a winner, we delve into his unyielding spirit and dedication to America. Margaret Sanger's History: Examining the controversial history of Margaret Sanger and the current stance of National Socialists. World Government Fallacy: Debunking the notion that a world government is necessary for justice, showcasing the inherent dangers of such ideologies. Planned Parenthood Investigation: A deep dive into the ongoing investigations into Planned Parenthood and the critical issues surrounding it. Freedom Toons' "They Got Trump" Comics: Ending on a lighthearted note, we share and laugh over the latest comics from Freedom Toons that highlight the absurdity of the Democrats' attacks on President Trump. Join Jeffrey and Shannon as they provide insightful commentary and unfiltered truth on these crucial issues. Don't miss out on this engaging and informative episode! Keywords: MG Show, Jeffrey Pedersen, Shannon Townsend, President Trump, Stanford Internet Observatory, Joe Biden, bad press, Parkland school, DJT, fighter, winner, Margaret Sanger, National Socialists, world government, justice, Planned Parenthood, Freedom Toons, comics, Democrats, unfiltered truth.

Introducing What's the State of Misinformation? with Renée DiResta from Getting Curious with Jonathan Van Ness.Follow the show: Getting Curious with Jonathan Van Ness We're all so used to turning to our phones for information, but how exactly does it travel across the internet…and what happens if that information is wrong? Renée DiResta is the perfect expert to break it all down for us! Jonathan and Renée dig into the differences and potential dangers of misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda. From generative AI and Father Coughlin, to political polarization and being subpoenaed by Jim Jordan, we cover it all. Renée DiResta is the Research Manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory where she investigates the spread of malign narratives across social networks, and assists policymakers in understanding and responding to the problem. She has advised Congress, the State Department, and other academic, civic, and business organizations, and has studied disinformation and computational propaganda in the context of pseudoscience conspiracies, terrorism, and state-sponsored information warfare. Her latest book, “Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality” is out on June 11th. You can follow Renée on Threads @renee.diresta and on LinkedIn. Follow us on Instagram @CuriousWithJVN to join the conversation. Jonathan is on Instagram @JVN. Transcripts for each episode are available at JonathanVanNess.com. Find books from Getting Curious guests at bookshop.org/shop/curiouswithjvn. Our senior producers are Chris McClure and Julia Melfi. Our engineer is Nathanael McClure. Production support from Julie Carrillo, Anne Currie, and Chad Hall. Our theme music is “Freak” by QUIÑ; for more, head to TheQuinCat.com. Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices DISCLAIMER: Please note, this is an independent podcast episode not affiliated with, endorsed by, or produced in conjunction with the host podcast feed or any of its media entities. The views and opinions expressed in this episode are solely those of the creators and guests. For any concerns, please reach out to team@podroll.fm.

We're all so used to turning to our phones for information, but how exactly does it travel across the internet…and what happens if that information is wrong? Renée DiResta is the perfect expert to break it all down for us! Jonathan and Renée dig into the differences and potential dangers of misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda. From generative AI and Father Coughlin, to political polarization and being subpoenaed by Jim Jordan, we cover it all. Renée DiResta is the Research Manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory where she investigates the spread of malign narratives across social networks, and assists policymakers in understanding and responding to the problem. She has advised Congress, the State Department, and other academic, civic, and business organizations, and has studied disinformation and computational propaganda in the context of pseudoscience conspiracies, terrorism, and state-sponsored information warfare. Her latest book, “Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality” is out on June 11th. You can follow Renée on Threads @renee.diresta and on LinkedIn. Follow us on Instagram @CuriousWithJVN to join the conversation. Jonathan is on Instagram @JVN. Transcripts for each episode are available at JonathanVanNess.com. Find books from Getting Curious guests at bookshop.org/shop/curiouswithjvn. Our senior producers are Chris McClure and Julia Melfi. Our engineer is Nathanael McClure. Production support from Julie Carrillo, Anne Currie, and Chad Hall. Our theme music is “Freak” by QUIÑ; for more, head to TheQuinCat.com. Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From August 20, 2020: This week on Lawfare's Arbiters of Truth series on disinformation, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Alex Stamos, the director of the Stanford Internet Observatory and former chief security officer of Yahoo and Facebook. Alex has appeared on the podcast before, but this time, they discussed a new coalition he helped set up called the Election Integrity Partnership—a coalition focused on detecting and mitigating attempts to limit voting or delegitimize election results. Disinformation and misinformation around the U.S. presidential election has already started popping up online, and it's only going to increase as November draws closer. The coalition aims to counter this in real time. So how will it actually work?They also asked Alex for his hot takes on TikTok—the popular video sharing platform facing pressure over concern about influence from the Chinese government.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Stanford's Evelyn Douek and Alex Stamos are joined by Stanford Internet Observatory's Shelby Grossman to discuss SIO's just-released report on the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Online Child Safety Ecosystem. Read the report here.SIO is also calling for presentation proposals for its annual Trust and Safety Research Conference. Proposals are due April 30. Details are here: https://io.stanford.edu/conferenceJoin the conversation and connect with Evelyn and Alex on your favorite social media platform that doesn't start with “X.”Moderated Content is produced in partnership by Stanford Law School and the Cyber Policy Center. Special thanks to John Perrino for research and editorial assistance.Like what you heard? Don't forget to subscribe and share the podcast with friends!

One of the dark sides of the rapid development of artificial intelligence and machine learning is the increase in computer-generated child pornography and other child sexual abuse material, or CG-CSAM for short. This material threatens to overwhelm the attempts of online platforms to filter for harmful content—and of prosecutors to bring those who create and disseminate CG-CSAM to justice. But it also raises complex statutory and constitutional legal issues as to what types of CG-CSAM are, and are not, legal.To explore these issues, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Lawfare Senior Editor Alan Rozenshtein spoke with Riana Pfefferkorn, a Research Scholar at the Stanford Internet Observatory, who has just published a new white paper in Lawfare's ongoing Digital Social Contract paper series exploring the legal and policy implications of CG-CSAM. Joining in the discussion was her colleague David Thiel, Stanford Internet Observatory's Chief Technologist, and a co-author of an important technical analysis of the recent increase in CG-CSAM.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Social media has been inundated with disinformation about the Israel-Hamas war — from a flood of graphic visual content, to unsubstantiated claims and opportunistic content generation (and monetization) by third parties to this conflict. To make sense of this fog of war, we turn to a panel that brings together a reporter, a researcher and a former Facebook/Meta insider: Shayan Sardarizadeh is a senior disinformation journalist with the BBC, Renée DiResta is a research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, and Katie Harbath spent 10 years as the public policy director at Facebook. Together, they unpack how we got here – and how we might seek clarity in a moment fogged by intense emotion, unfolding information and immense complexity. Questions? Comments? Email us at on@voxmedia.com or find us on social media. We're on Instagram/Threads as @karaswisher and @nayeemaraza  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hosted by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Cyber Initiative and Aspen Digital, Verify 2023 brings together journalists and cyber and tech policy experts to discuss critical issues in cybersecurity. For this live recording of the Lawfare Podcast, Benjamin Wittes sat down at Verify 2023 with Alex Stamos of the Stanford Internet Observatory; Nicole Perlroth, formerly of the New York Times and the author of a recent book on zero days; and Dave Willner, the Head of Trust & Safety at OpenAI, the company that produces ChatGPT. They talked about cybersecurity and AI, the threats to AI algorithms, the threats from AI algorithms, and the threats from humans misusing large language models. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.