One simple thing we pointed out in the what to expect when you're electing report for EIP was really embracing experts talking about "how such things usually turn out". I don't think people understand the difference this makes. https://t.co/mWUVCR4Pbz

We value experts b/c they are careful when commenting on things they don't have the full picture on. And that's good. But one thing I've found in my deep dive into the electoral disinformation flows is that expertise arrives *days* after all the disinfoverse explanations go viral

So the expertise that should be making us smarter socially doesn't really help. As I looked through reporting and thought about my own experience being interviewed it occurred to me that so often we're asked "What is this thing likely to be?" and that makes us skittish.

The true answer to "What is this thing likely to be?" is a mess of really dubious percentages requiring lots of inputs. And the uncertainty we express just makes it look like truth might be unknowable. People are bad at comprehending likelihoods.

On the other hand, ask an expert "How have similar things in the past turned out? and you'll not only get a more helpful answer, you'll get a STORY -- a narrative that can actually compete with other narratives.

I think there is more than enough evidence now that had the mob reached Congress members of Congress would have been either harmed, held hostage, or killed. Let's keep that in mind as folks try to frame this as speech.

Sometimes you don't know what someone is really arguing until it's followed by action. If someone says "Pelosi should pay the price for treason" are they saying people should make that happen or saying a judicial process should be launched.

On the other hand, this is a group of people, a movement, that spent a couple weeks on Facebook saying Mike Pence would pay the price for treason on January 6, said at the event they wanted to find and hang him, then broke into the building with rope.

So we know what this means. And we know what it meant. And honestly given the history f the folks involved we could have told you before.

The point is that history matters. Certain comments from certain groups merit special treatment because those comments and those groups have a history of violence associated with them.

Some quick notes on how to be careful with what you read and share right now on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, based on SIFT, with some slight shifts in emphasis for fast-moving foreign events. 🧵

STOP is always the first move of SIFT, and the first question you need to ask is not "Is this true?" but "Do I even know what I'm looking at here?" Jumping immediately to questions of truth before assessing personal knowledge & capability is where most people go wrong.

STOP is *always* important, but it is particularly important with events in a foreign, fast-moving context. It's too easy to look at a video depicting events thousands of miles away in languages we do not understand shared by ppl we don't know and think "This looks legit"

Taking a moment or two (and you can do it right now!) to reflect on your limitations in this sort of context is helpful. And with each piece of content asking yourself "Do I know what I am looking at here?" becomes crucial for every piece of content.

When it comes to INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE, we look for two things: One, is source of the information likely to be what we call "in the know" -- do they have *significantly* above average knowledge of a situation because of expertise, profession, life experience, or location?