Introduction
The form of the information presented is equally important as the content because it determines the audience’s attitude to the articulated facts. For instance, it is possible to manipulate the target audience’s feelings to achieve the set goals. Showing the picture of the child standing in front of the destroyed house triggers strong emotions, facilitating persuasion. Various groups can use it to influence the opinion of individuals and to manipulate their feelings. As the movie “The Facebook Dilemma” shows, freedom of speech in social media is a controversial issue (Jacoby, 2018). It can be used for destructive purposes, including domestic and geopolitical terrorism (Jacoby, 2018).
For instance, it is possible to spread fake news on social media to form the opinion of users in a particular way, which is critical in the long-term perspective (Jacoby, 2018). In addition, social media can be used as a means of coordinating riots and violent protests, which makes social unrest dangerous for the country and its participants (Jacoby, 2018). Therefore, the different ways to weaponize information using social media for domestic and geopolitical terrorism show that information is a valuable resource.
Discussion
Various actors use weaponized information for their reasons. It is possible to divide them into political, social, and military groups. They can attempt to divide the power and gain influence within the domestic community or focus on international issues (Drezner et al., 2021). For example, political manipulation with facts is connected with the division of power in a particular state. The rivalry in domestic politics makes the attempts of the sides to use the news to show their advantage over another side rationally justified (Drezner et al., 2021). At the same time, similar manipulations with facts can be conducted on the international level as part of the geopolitical discourse.
The weaponized information, in this case, can include the use of deep fakes, omission of the critical things in the discussion of the event, and deliberate change of the context (Drezner et al., 2021). It can result in the aggravation of tension between countries, the polarization of society, and the overall radicalization of the political sphere (Drezner et al., 2021). These examples illustrate the hypothesis that using weaponized information negatively affects society.
I do not consider weaponizing the information a cybercrime because the adult person should understand when their opinion is manipulated. In addition, it is impossible to control the use of propaganda or another type of weaponized information. Therefore, misleading information always existed, and people should learn to distinguish the truth from the fake information themselves. Critical thinking skills can help them in this attempt because people know how to interpret information (Prier, 2017). It is essential to develop them because it is unrealistic to guarantee the individual that no one will try to use misleading data in communication with them.
At the same time, when the deliberate manipulation of information leads to serious harm, these actions become criminal by their essence. In this case, the steps of people who weaponize information can be explained by conflict theory. Their motivation is determined by the rivalry that is inseparable from the conflict (Prier, 2017). As a result, these individuals try to do everything possible to use the information to win in the competition for people’s influence, even though it is not ethical.
Cyberterrorism should be opposed on the federal and state level to ensure social and political stability in the country. Businesses, in turn, should protect the company from potential losses and fraud due to cyber terrorism. It is possible to assume that excessive focus on this topic and control of social media can violate the first amendment right to free speech (Prier, 2017).
The governmental and business control of data published online leads to a situation when people cannot learn the truth because the officials regulate all information. It is also an example of propaganda and weaponizing information, even though the motivation might be positive (Drezner et al., 2021). These actors aim to preserve society’s stability and integrity, which does not allow to call them terrorists (Prier, 2017). However, they still filter information and decide which data is preferable for their audience, which is an example of weaponizing data.
Governmental and business agencies enforce the laws that regulate free speech on the Internet without inhibiting the first amendment by referring to the rules of the media service. For instance, such social media companies as Facebook have their set of regulations and rules that allow moderators to ban the data they do not regard as accurate (Prier, 2017). It causes significant controversy among the readers because it shows that not all opinions can be articulated in social media.
Conclusion
Therefore, weaponizing information supposes manipulating facts and emotions to achieve particular goals. It is an ethically controversial issue because it violates the principles of integrity. At the same time, adults should develop critical thinking skills to avoid these manipulations. It allows to assume that weaponizing information is not cybercrime if it does not lead to severe consequences, but still, it is immoral.
References
Drezner, D. W., Farell, H., & Newman, A. L.. (2021). The uses and abuses of weaponized interdependence. Brookings Institution Press.
Jacoby, J., dir. (2018). The Facebook dilemma. PBS.
Prier, J. (2017). Commanding the trend: Social media as information warfare. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 11(4), 50–85. Web.