CHAPTER 20 - WRESTLING WITH TROLLS

Use an opponent’s strength against them to minimize harm.

When opponents attack or push back, this can feel like the most dangerous challenge of all. Every action has a counteraction. Anticipate your opponent’s moves to stay ahead. 

Understanding your opponent’s perspective and likely strategies helps you plan better and avoid surprises, making your campaign more effective. We have adapted approaches from the Commons Library for this chapter.

Prepare for disinformation and misinformation

Disinformation (deliberate sharing of lies) and misinformation (the sharing of rumors) tend to be types of developmental storm, but can turn into situational and existential threats. The best ways to prepare for this are:

• Risk management

  • Build resilience in advance. Use the other tools in this Section to predict and rehearse what you would do 

  • Assess the risks for severity and impact of any possible disinformation and misinformation campaign

  • Prepare approaches and messages to “prebunk” and mitigate disinformation and test them out using the Red Team tool in this Section

• Monitoring and Reporting

  • Monitor social media daily e.g. by gathering links to ads being run by certain types of accounts

  • Flag content on social media channels as disinformation

• Responding

  • Seed alternative narratives (see Chapter 10): Use this as an opportunity to frame the (counter) narrative you want to take hold

  • Frame your facts well (see Section 3: Navigation). Facts alone will not stop the storm

  • Act swiftly and carefully. A hasty reaction could make the situation worse

  • Act efficiently. One briefing that shows how and why the disinformation or misinformation is being spread can be referred back to. 

  • Respond directly and calmly to the source (unless you suspect this to be a fake social media account) to clarify

  • Use multiple channels where the disinformation originated and which your audiences frequent.

• Troubleshooting

• Consider audience needs (see Chapter 11) and values (Chapter 14). Facts are not always enough. Many internet users are unwilling to engage with fact checkers

• Reach out via trusted messengers (see Chapter 13) and communities (Chapter 12). Personal preferences and social media algorithms that serve up content to reinforce certain views can prevent your message reaching an audience

Show compassion: False and misleading information causes stress and pain for people, particularly at times of crisis. Showing intersectional compassion through your work and communications is a universal way to sidestep divisive rhetoric, show genuine support for people, and build trust.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Charge through developmental storms

In a developmental storm, an opponent might plant the seeds of a counter narrative to yours and:

• Discredit: Undermine your credibility through the media or public hearings, painting your group as unreasonable or radical

• Discount: Minimize the problem's importance or question your legitimacy. For example, they might call your group extremist or downplay the issue's severity

• Deflect: Shift attention to side issues or pass responsibility to another group. For example, if you demand a hazardous waste cleanup, they might talk about an unrelated environmental bill

• Deceive: Spread disinformation (deliberately), or misinformation (unintentionally) Mislead you into thinking meaningful action is happening when it is not. This includes offering fake solutions or setting up misleading meetings

These may hinder your progress towards your goals and Near Star. The best way to deal with these is generally to charge:

• Frame the debate on your terms

• Publicize the tactics your opponent is taking

• Maintain your narrative

• Use trusted messengers to spread your narrative

• Avoid engaging directly with trolls; instead, leverage supporters to use their weight against them and expose their inconsistencies

Sidestep situational storms

In a situational storm, an opponent might:

• Delay: Pretend to address the issue without actually doing anything, hoping to wear you out and make you lose momentum

• Divide: Create division within your group or between your group and the community. They might try to dox (publish private information about you), attack (to disable a website or other systems or infrastructure) separate moderate members from more militant ones

• Dulcify: Soothe or pacify by offering small concessions or benefits, diverting attention from the long-term issues

• Deny: Refuse to acknowledge the problem or your proposed solution. They might claim there's no problem or it is not significant enough - or launch a lawsuit against you

• Deal: Offer to work with you to find a mutually acceptable solution. However, be cautious of compromises that do not provide real value

​

This kind of storm threatens your Near Star. The best way to deal with these is to sidestep and look at how you can use the situation to your advantage. You could:

• Consider your opponent’s psychology: You may do better by seeking a solution or partnership with them rather opposition

• Create illusion: Vary your tactics to keep them guessing. Trick your opponents into misjudging your plans, e.g. by making them think you have more resources or planned actions. This spreads their focus and weakens their response

• Seek support or solidarity

• Respond through allies or messengers that your audiences trust

• Raise funds for legal defense

• Know when to negotiate: Negotiation means settling a dispute through compromise, not surrender. Probing with certain tactics can reveal if negotiation is possible. Be careful not to propose talks too soon, as this might be seen as weakness. Compromise carefully. Giving up too quickly can cost you, while being too rigid can end talks. Understanding the political, economic, and social context helps in making wise decisions

• Use their weight against them: Nonviolence exposes your opponents’ harsh responses and can sway public sympathy. This works by affecting three groups:

1. Uncommitted third parties: Witnessing repression of peaceful activists moves uninvolved people to support

2. Opponent’s supporters: Violence against peaceful protestors can create dissent within the opponent’s group

3. General grievance group: Enduring repression strengthens the resolve of activists

• Adjust your immediate goals or Near Star (in some situations)

Adapt to existential storms

In an existential storm, an opponent might try to:

• Destroy: Use legal or economic means to destabilize, bankrupt or eliminate your group through legal actions or law changes to restrict civil society space. This might include threats of lawsuits or actual legal action to intimidate you

In such critical situations it is crucial to adapt. Consider alternative strategies to advance to your overarching goal or Guiding Star including:

• Change your Near Star

• Concentrate your strength against the opponent’s weakness: Use indirect approaches. Create the appearance of dispersed forces to cause the opponent to spread out, making your concentrated efforts more effective. Avoid giving your opponent time to concentrate their forces against you or build belief that they are winning

• Redirect or share resources with other activists or organizations 

• Adjust your focus or explore new approaches

By using these strategies it is possible to “downgrade” a storm from an existential threat to a situational or developmental obstacle.

Read more: 

• Dealing with the Opposition paper

• https://commonslibrary.org/disinformation-101/ 

• More detail and case studies: https://commonslibrary.org/how-to-dealing-with-disinformation/ 

• Civil society organization vs attacks cheatsheet: https://www.metgroup.com.mx/civilstory/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/SCO-attacks-cheatsheet.pdf 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

An existential storm hit an environmental organization (names withheld for protection) in India - a series of coordinated direct attacks on their choice to campaign against massive fossil fuel companies, who were in regular communications with government authorities. 

The storm included a long list of hostile tactics:

• Discredit: An organized raid on the organization’s offices one regular working Monday by government officials who accused the organization of financial money laundering 

• Destroy: Locked organization bank accounts so that salaries, rents and even electricity bills were not allowed to be paid 

• Deceive: Fake media stories (disinformation) circulated among different local and national media to crackdown on the organization and question their legitimacy and credibility 

• Destroy: Threats of jail sentences without bail issued to the organization leadership 

• Discredit and Destroy: Private raids of the houses of elderly parents of campaigners and board members 

Although this storm disrupted the work of the organization, its campaigners were able to take very slow, strategic, steps to emerge from the crisis. This enabled them to revert to doing their work, but in different forms. 

First the crisis management team focused on a few things:

1. Framed the debate internally on their terms: They maintained transparency within the team to avoid creating any internal divisions, so they could remain united. 

2. Considered their opponents’ psychology: A delay tactic was employed to give time to the authorities to tire out and eventually shift their focus to other things. 

3. Avoided engaging directly: They maintained their narratives but did not get caught up in a media battle. Instead they focused on a legal strategy that would prove them to be legitimate in their work and the allegations leveled against them to be false. 

4. Changed their Near Star and Adjusted their focus: of winning the ongoing campaigns was shifted to keeping the organization functioning and having the resources to fight the legal battle. 

5. Redirected resources: 

   1. Due to the bank account blockades bankruptcy was unavoidable so the teams had to be dismantled but with application of foresight, maintaining transparency, it was done smoothly avoiding all possible disruptions. 

   2. A small team of less than 10 people was maintained along with lawyers to continue the legal cases. 

6. Shared intelligence with others: Meanwhile the original campaigns were led by partners and allies so that they didn’t lose momentum while this organization dealt with the crisis in hand. 

7. Created illusion: As a tactic, the offices were closed down or shrunk to give an illusion of success to their detractors, and to remove the risks of further raids and direct attacks. 

The delay tactic allowed the campaign narrative to persist, while also helping the organization to win the legal case and finally rebuild itself back to its full capacity. While many organizations were devastated in face of similar attacks, foresight, resilience and smart strategic methods to wrestle with the trolls helped this organization to survive, thrive and reinvest itself.

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​

State and corporate actors including large-scale mining operations had been encroaching on ancestral lands in the Philippines.

The Indigenous Land Rights Movement in the Philippines, particularly among the Lumad people in Mindanao, had three objectives:

• Resist displacement by both state and corporate actors

• Protect Indigenous lands from exploitation

• Secure legal recognition of Indigenous land rights

The movement negotiated all three types of storm caused by these opponents:

Developmental Storm: 

• Discredit: Opponents, including some government officials and corporate interests, sought to undermine the credibility of the indigenous groups by portraying them as obstructive or radical 

  • The movement framed the debate on their terms, and used their narrative around human rights and environmental justice

  • The movement used trusted messengers among media and international support to highlight their legitimate claims

• Discount: Opponents tried to minimize the importance of the land rights issue, with claims that the land was of little economic value or that Indigenous claims were exaggerated. 

  • The movement maintained its narrative by consistently presenting evidence of the cultural, ecological, and legal significance of their land

• Deflect: To divert attention, opponents sometimes focused on unrelated issues, such as alleged corruption or infighting within the movement 

  • The activists avoided engaging directly, and maintained a clear focus on their core issues and publicizing any attempts to shift the narrative away from the land rights at stake

• Deceive: Opponents proposed false solutions or misleading meetings to pacify the activists without addressing their core concerns 

  • The movement publicized the tactics that the opponent was taking, stayed vigilant, fact-checked the offers, and demanded genuine engagement rather than token gestures

Situational Storm:

• Delay: Government agencies and corporations sometimes made symbolic promises of consultations or negotiations while continuing with their projects

  • The movement adapted by using these delays to build broader alliances and secure additional support from both national and international bodies

• Divide: Opponents tried to create divisions within the indigenous groups or between them and local communities 

  • The movement worked to foster unity and solidarity through grassroots organizing and outreach to other affected communities

• Dulcify: Opponents occasionally offered small concessions to appease the activists while continuing harmful activities 

  • The movement avoided being pacified by focusing on long-term goals and maintaining pressure on policymakers

• Deny: Opponents often tried to deny the existence or significance of indigenous land rights. 

  • The movement used the weight of opponents against them - it used legal frameworks and international human rights standards to affirm its claims and mobilize support

Existential Storm:

• Destroy: Opponents used severe repression on the movement, including violent attacks and legal actions against activists. 

  • The movement prioritized resilience as its Near Star, which helped it to:

  • Concentrate its strength on the opponents’ weakness through high-impact legal cases

  • Share resources with international human rights organizations who also took action

  • Create the appearance of dispersed forces: Highlight the severity of the repression, thus galvanizing global support

The Indigenous Land Rights Movement in the Philippines achieved several successes including: 

• Increased recognition of indigenous land rights in some areas. 

• Heightened international awareness of the issues faced by the Lumad people. 

• Despite ongoing challenges and repression, the movement's strategic responses helped mitigate some of the impacts of the various storms they encountered, demonstrating resilience and adaptability in the face of multifaceted opposition.

Further reading: https://populationandsecurity.com/lumads-in-the-philippians-an-enduring-fight-for-indigenous-rights/; see also https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/us-land-life; and https://youtu.be/LwQpFmcR2eY 

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

​

​

​