How Authoritarian Disinformation Works
Divide, Exhaust, Paralyze
The Real Goal of Disinformation
Here’s what most people get wrong about disinformation: They think the goal is to make you believe a lie.
It’s not.
The real goal is simpler and more insidious:
Make you distrust potential allies
Exhaust you so you disengage
Make compromise seem like betrayal
Prevent collective action
The goal isn’t persuasion. It’s paralysis.
When movements that could challenge power are divided, exhausted, and unable to work together authoritarians win without firing a shot.
Let me show you how this works with three contemporary examples.
EXAMPLE 1: The Russian Playbook - Amplify Both Sides
What happened (2016-present):
The Russian Internet Research Agency - the troll farm behind election interference - did something brilliant and terrifying:
They created fake Black Lives Matter pages organizing protests against police violence.
At the same time, they created fake “Blue Lives Matter” pages organizing counter-protests supporting police.
Then, and this is the key, they organized both groups to show up at the same place, at the same time.
The goal? Not to support either side. Not to make anyone believe Russia cares about American policing.
The goal was to make Americans fight each other and make reconciliation impossible.
How it works:
Find a real tension - Police accountability vs. public safety is a genuine issue where reasonable people disagree
Amplify the extremes on both sides - Make the most radical voices on each side seem representative
Suppress the moderates - The bridge-builders, the reformers, the people seeking common ground get drowned out, making polarization seem worse that it is, causing centrists to eventual opt out
Watch them fight - Each side now sees the other as the enemy, not as neighbors with legitimate concerns
The result: Communities that could build coalitions around reform, like “we want both safety AND accountability,” instead fracture into camps that can’t talk to each other.
The policy that’s actually creating the problem? Untouched.
This same playbook is being run on:
Vaccine policy (splitting potential health equity coalitions along racial lines)
Immigration (pitting working-class communities against each other)
Climate action (jobs vs. environment, which is a false binary)
The Takeaway: They don’t need to convince you their side is right. They just need to convince you the other side is your enemy.
EXAMPLE 2: Micro-Targeted Division – You Don’t Know What They’re Telling Your Neighbor
The Facebook/Cambridge Analytica model:
In 2016, Cambridge Analytica harvested data from 87 million Facebook users and used psychological profiling to send different messages to different people.
Here’s the scary part:
Person A (socially conservative, values tradition): Gets messages that liberal policies threaten family values and religious freedom.
Person B (socially liberal, values equality): Gets messages that conservative policies threaten civil rights and personal freedom.
Neither person sees what the other is being told.
The result: There is no shared reality to debate within. Each person thinks they’re responding to facts, but they’re responding to completely different information designed to trigger their specific anxieties.
Example from vaccine messaging:
To Black communities: Messages exploiting historical medical racism (Tuskegee) to create vaccine hesitancy: “Don’t trust the government, they’ve experimented on us before.”
To white conservatives: Messages framing vaccines as government control: “They’re forcing you to put things in your body, this is about freedom.”
Both messages are designed to prevent a coalition from forming around public health: Black communities and white working-class communities both need accessible healthcare, but some within them are fighting about vaccines instead of demanding better health systems, and these are the fights that get amplified on social media and in the news.
Why this is so effective:
You can’t counter an argument if you don’t know it’s being made. Your neighbor genuinely believes you’re the problem because they’ve been fed completely different information.
And when you try to talk to each other? You’re literally living in different information ecosystems. No wonder we can’t find common ground.
EXAMPLE 3: The Portland Case Study - Local Control Becomes “Anarchist Jurisdiction”
This is happening right now, and it’s the authoritarian playbook in action:
The reality: Portland has localized protests at one ICE facility. Portland police say they have it under control. Local officials say federal intervention isn’t needed.
The narrative being constructed:
“Portland is a war zone,” “Anarchist jurisdiction,” “Outside agitators,” “Federal property must be protected.”
How the division works:
Split 1: Protesters vs. “Normal Portlanders”
Characterize entire city by actions at one location, or just tell the big lie that the city is in flames
Force people to choose: Are you with the “radicals” or the “normal people”?
Prevents coalition: Business owners, residents, and activists who all oppose militarization may choose to distance from each other as the fight seems to be between two extremes, neither of which are good for business
Split 2: Local vs. Federal Control
Frame local officials as either complicit with chaos or powerless
Federal narrative overrides local assessment
Residents who trust local officials vs. those who believe federal characterization
Split 3: “Law and Order” vs. “Lawlessness”
False binary: Either support federal deployment or support “anarchy”
Ignores vast middle ground: “We want safety AND civil liberties AND local control”
The result: A coalition that could include:
Veterans (opposed to military in American streets)
Business leaders (federal deployment bad for business climate)
Civil liberties advocates (rights violations)
Neighborhood associations (local control)
Faith communities (human dignity)
...is divided into camps that are not likely to work together.
**Meanwhile, the actual policy question, “Should federal forces override local control?” gets lost in the fight about whether Portland is “really” that bad. Portland’s pro-democracy leaders are not falling into this trap because they understand how disinformation works, but as the base of the movement grows larger, we grow more vulnerable.
THE PATTERN: What All These Examples Share
Notice the mechanics:
Start with a real issue - These aren’t completely made up. There ARE tensions around policing, vaccines, protests.
Amplify extremes, suppress moderates - Make reasonable middle ground seem impossible or naive.
Create different realities for different audiences - Use targeted messaging so people can’t even agree on basic facts and appear to be liars as they are acting from different information eco-systems.
Force false binaries - “Pick a side” when most people actually want nuanced solutions.
Make coalition-building seem like betrayal - “How can you work with THEM?”
The goal is never to win the argument.
The goal is to make sure no effective coalition can form to challenge power.
HOW TO COUNTER IT
The good news: Once you see the pattern, you can disrupt it.
1. Name the tactic when you see it
When someone tries to force you into a false binary, say: “I notice we’re being presented with only two options. What are we missing?”
When someone says you can’t work with X group, ask: “Who benefits if we stay divided?”
2. Build “strange bedfellow” coalitions
The most powerful counter to divide-and-conquer is coalitions that already transcend the divisions:
Build: Veterans Against Military Deployment + Business Leaders for Local Control + Faith Communities for Peace + Neighborhood Associations for Accountable Government
This coalition can’t be dismissed as “radical activists” and can’t be divided along the usual lines.
3. Establish shared facts first
Before debating solutions, agree on basic reality:
What’s actually happening (not what we’re told is happening)
Who’s actually affected
What data shows vs. what narrative claims
Create transparency: Real-time dashboards, public data, livestreams that everyone can see.
4. Humanize the “other side”
Personal stories break down caricatures. When people meet each other as humans, not as representatives of Team Red or Team Blue, division tactics fail.
Create spaces where people from different groups actually talk to each other.
5. Reject purity tests
Welcome imperfect allies. You don’t need to agree on everything to work together on specific goals.
Taiwan’s wisdom: Their democracy movement succeeded because they built coalitions across divides - LGBTQ activists + Buddhist groups, urban tech workers + rural farmers.
The Choice
Authoritarians want you:
Fighting each other
Exhausted
Cynical
Alone
Your counter-move:
Build coalitions across lines
Name the division tactics
Create shared reality
Stay energized through solidarity
Remember: They win when we’re divided. We win when we find unexpected allies and work together.
The question isn’t whether you agree with everyone in your coalition.
The question is: Can you identify shared threats and work together on specific goals?
Because that’s what authoritarians fear most: people who refuse to be divided.
CALL TO ACTION
This week:
Identify one division in your community that seems manufactured - Who benefits if these groups stay separated?
Reach across one line you usually don’t cross - Talk to someone from a different political background about a shared concern (local control, economic security, community safety)
When you see a false binary, name it - “Are those really our only two options?”
The most radical thing you can do in 2025 is refuse to be divided from potential allies.
Build coalitions authoritarians didn’t see coming. That’s how we win.
Particularly excellent