> First, before a propaganda campaign or disinformation spreads, we usually observe that there is a point where they are doing some kind of limited testing or A

> First, before a propaganda campaign or disinformation spreads, we usually observe that there is a point where they are doing some kind of limited testing or A/B testing, and that's before it became really popular. It's just testing the meme, the variation, to see whether it would go viral, so to speak. I have definitely seen this happen in real time. Suggest it publicly and you'll be accused of being Alex Jones, but it happens. Glad to see a public official acknowledging this. > Our observation is that if we do that, then most of the population reach this message like an inoculation before they reach the disinformation, and so that protects like a vaccination. Strange that I've just come across a paper related to this notion: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5090268 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5090268 An interesting approach, might be an oversimplification of real-world dynamics though. > Once they do that, Facebook promises, by June, that this will inform the Facebook's algorithm so that it will stop being preferred to show on people's newsfeed, but it's not censorship. If you look specifically for that friend, that post is still there, but they have a warning that says it's already fact-checked as false. This is much better than removing the post, but it still makes me nervous. Just imagine that we're in the early 2000s, and you can envision a banner saying "The claims in this article are FALSE. As confirmed by the intelligence community and the New York Times, Iraq is actively working on its nuclear weapons program." Perhaps they should have a policy limiting the use of this tool when it comes to issues that may lead to war.