Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality

by Renee DiResta, Anna Caputo (Narrator)

 A brilliant, original investigation into the radical shift of power as invisible rulers create bespoke realities revolutionizing politics, culture, and society. Anyone who wishes to destroy legitimate political and social power has a new weapon. It is the anarchist's dream, a force so shockingly effective that its destructive power seems limitless. Scientific proof is powerless in front of it; democratic validity is bulldozed by it; leaders are humiliated by it. What we used to call influence has become something violently toxic. Renée DiResta gives us a powerful original framing to explain how it now shapes public opinion through a virtual rumor mill of niche propagandists. While they position themselves as trustworthy “Davids”, their reach, influence, and economics make them classic Goliaths, invisible rulers who create bespoke realities that control the destinies of millions of people, their work driven by a simple “if you make it trend, you make it true.” By revealing the machinery and the dynamics of the interplay between influencers, algorithms, and online crowds, DiResta vividly illustrates the way belief in the fundamental legitimacy of institutions that make society work is deliberately undermined.  This alternate system for shaping public opinion, unexamined until now, is rewriting the relationship between the people and their government in profoundly disturbing ways. From taking on and defeating California’s anti-vaxxers a decade ago to uncovering the ways that China and Russia target the American public and our elections, - and now herself a target of Congressmen Jim Jordan and hyper-partisans of the lunatic fringe – DiResta has not merely been an observer of the machinery promulgating the Big Lie and the unyielding culture wars. As analyst, investigator, and participant, she provides unprecedented insight into the way influencers shape the opinion and behavior of massive crowds, with the power to drive those crowds into battle – while bearing no responsibility for the consequences.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, History, Technology, Audiobook, Sociology, Psychology

15 pages, Audiobook

Published June 11, 2024

Reviews

[Eric · Rating 1 out of 5]

A somewhat disclaimer: I found this book on NetGalley and was sent an advanced copy to review. The book was so misleading—and often blatantly false—that I had to do some Googling to see if the author, Renee DiResta, was credible. I came across a recent post of hers on Twitter (or maybe the Facebook knockoff one?) where she claimed journalist Matt Taibbi was lying about being threatened with jail time for perjury due to disputed facts from his testimony to Congress. DiResta even included the letter sent to Taibbi in her post as “proof” that he was lying. So I read it and it seemed pretty clear to me the letter was demanding he retract details of his testimony or possibly be charged for perjury (the consequences—5 years in prison—were even laid out for him). I also remembered that a few free press nonprofits strongly criticized the threatening letter, so I was confused as to why DiResta was calling him a liar.

I commented on her post saying something about how the letter sounded like mobspeak for “be a shame if you got locked up.” Instead of addressing my point, DiResta immediately called me a “stan” (I’m definitely more of a Kyle with a little bit of a Randy…maybe some Towlie too) and tried making me answer for a bunch of irrelevant mistakes she believed Taibbi made in his reporting about her. This was when I started to put together that she was one of those mentioned in the Twitter Files story. (Btw, I’m an absolute regular guy and have never met or had anything to do with any of these people.) Yes, I subscribe to his newsletter—along with the RSS feeds of many other journalists across the political spectrum—but so what? After reading the rest of the book this exchange made sense; she believes those who disagree with her are either manipulative propagandists or brainwashed followers of these “propagandists.” Throughout the book she never considers that people simply prioritize some values over others. Anyways, point being: I really tried to keep an open mind as I finished the book, but the actual content was far from redeeming.

The premise of the book is basically the same truthiness narrative that’s been repeated ad nauseam since 2016: social media creates "bubble realities…that operate with their own norms, media, trusted authorities and frameworks of facts," which she calls “bespoke realities.” Free of expert hall monitors wagging their fingers at the peasants, disinformation, misinformation, polarization and conspiracies proliferate in these enclaves. Algorithms are then helping the fringe theories such as QAnon that developed in these unregulated ecosystems “to grow into an omniconspiracy, a singularity in which all manner of conspiracy theories melted together and appealed to far more adherents than any component part.” No, that’s not from an episode of South Park; but I did laugh so hard I might’ve peed a little 😳.

According to DiResta, this prevents society from operating within a “consensus reality” required for voters to make informed decisions, putting democracy itself at risk. “Reaching consensus is how societies make decisions and move forward, and steering that process can transform the future. Societies require consensus to function. Yet consensus today seems increasingly impossible,” DiResta writes. (Putting aside the creepy “steering that process can transform the future” part aside for a minute, a consensus on what? Was there a consensus before? Why is a consensus better than disagreement? Could a desire to seek consensus lead to social pressures that stifle truth? Once a consensus is formed what’s to stop it from hardening into dogma? She never gives more than fleeting thoughts to any of these questions.)

Before getting to the book’s “unique” addition to this stale narrative, it’s important to take a step back and actually evaluate these claims. DiResta supports these claims mostly with footnotes citing her own opinion pieces on sites like The Atlantic and “research” she conducted in a couple journals published by the institute she ran at Stanford — so basically she published her own research papers (it doesn’t seem like she’s ever read other research academics have published on misinformation unless it’s her own). She also attempts to back up her theories with scattered anecdotes everyone has heard over and over (and she repeats them over and over some more): Pizzagate, Russiagate, science denial-gate, ivermectin-gate, Pizzagate again, January 6-gate, and petty gossip about anyone who has criticized her (mostly Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger, who apparently “harass” her…by filing Freedom of Information Act requests). But are conspiracies, science denialism, extremist politics, etc. actually increasing? Or has there just been more focus on these issues, making them appear more prevalent?

According to research published in 2022 by Joseph Ucsinski, a political scientist who specializes in belief in conspiracies and misinformation, “Across four studies––including four distinct operationalizations of conspiracism, temporal comparisons spanning between seven months and 55 years, and tens of thousands of observations from seven nations––we find only scant evidence that conspiracism, however operationalized, has increased.”

In a peer reviewed surveyof over 150 academic experts on misinformation, “less than half of experts surveyed agreed that participants sincerely believe the misinformation they report to believe in surveys. This should motivate journalists to take alarmist survey results with a grain of salt.”

As far as science denialism goes, the nerds can rest easy knowing that, according to Pew, the public has more confidence in scientists to act in the public interest than any other profession in America — rising from 76% in 2016 to 86% in 2019. Only 13% say they have “not too much” or “low confidence” in scientists. About 9 in 10 Americans also believe the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. And only 3% of Americans say science has had a mostly negative effect on society.

Even when it comes to ostensibly “divisive” political issues like climate change, the reality of public opinion is once again drowned out by hysterical disasterbation (I propose adding disasterbation to the growing family of mis/dis/mal/information). DiResta uses the book Merchants of Doubt to claim private interests have spread a distrust of climate science among the public. Yet a survey conducted by Stanford University found that 82% of Americans believe “humans are at least partly responsible for [global] warming,” and 80% thought it was a “very” or “somewhat” serious problem for the US. The same survey even evaluates the claims in the book DiResta used to support her own shaky argument: “In her book, Merchants of Doubt,” which DiResta uncritically cites as evidence, “historian Naomi Oreskes asserted that the fossil fuel industry and its supporters had been engaged in efforts to reduce the certainty with which some Americans believed that global warming has been happening and to increase the certainty with which others believed that it has not been happening. Our surveys suggest that since 1997, there has been no systematic shifting of certainty in either of these ways. Among Americans who have believed that warming probably has been occurring, the proportion expressing this view with high certainty was quite consistent between 1997 and 2015, ranging from 44% to 58%. In 2020, it reached an all-time high of 63%,” according to a survey conducted by Stanford University . Hm, sounds like a consensus to me. If only our institutions weren’t so dysfunctional something could actually be done about climate change.

(None of this should suggest that Mis/dis/malinformation (MDM) aren’t still problems that deserve attention and to hopefully discover ways to improve public literacy, but context matters. It’s important to figure out whether the effects being observed are caused by social media or human nature, and if social media is actually exacerbating negative aspects of human nature or simply making them more noticeable.)

Now comes DiResta’s “interesting” contribution to this moldy potluck narrative. As the authority of those institutions has waned and trust in the Expert Class erodes, DiResta argues, the “rumor mill” of human nature to gossip — once confined to small communities — has now collided with the “propaganda machine” of social media. In place of the wise experts guiding public discourse are “influencers” — which includes anyone from QAnon moms and adolescent gamers to distinguished journalists who have Substacks — who manipulate algorithms and forge hive-mind communities, where they use propaganda techniques to amass power and influence.

DiResta uses the Two Step theory of information — which posits that certain community leaders have more influence over their group’s opinions than media or experts — to argue that it’s actually influencers who hold the real power. (The theory was developed in the 1950s by observing a small group of women and does not easily translate to the digital age.) “A handful of seemingly arbitrary people on social platforms, ‘influencers,’ now have a significant impact on what the public talks about and what the news media cover on any given day—particularly when it comes to culture war politics,” DiResta writes. The idea of peasants voicing their opinions online — and having people actually listen to them! — is just too absurd for her to handle. “A mom blogger, who got famous for her fun school lunch content, weighing in on Fed rate hikes? Why not.” That’s actually a good question: why not? (Paul Krugman just exploded).

Any attempt to actually try and measure the effects influencers have on the information environment versus the effects of the ostensibly former “invisible rulers” is valiantly avoided throughout the book.

While I completely agree on the deleterious effects some influencers are having on social and political discourse, she attempts to gerrymander definitions in order to tar independent journalists, activists and opinion leaders who’ve criticized her, such as Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, Bari Weiss, etc., as “influencers” or “propagandists,” and anyone who reads them as fanboys, stans and fanatics. The book attempts to distinguish an “influencer” from every other public figure based on their “access” to an audience. The influencer “has to be connected to a person somehow in order to ‘do something’ to him or her.” Using this definition, a band that interacts with their fans or a professor who socializes with students could be considered an influencer. But the vast majority of an audience never interacts with the supposed influencer, so would they still be considered to have the “access” required to persuade? This is where Direst pulls an about-face. “Influencers have significant reach and access to audiences within their own follower communities; you might not know MrBeast personally, but his relatability and constant presence in your feed create a sense of connection, of some sort of relationship” Ok…so do characters on sitcoms and nightly news anchors. And in a media environment where writers frequently freelance, publish books and interact on social media, this expansive definition serves only as a way to label those whom you disagree with a word that has belittling connotations.

Ironically, she encourages readers to look for “the importance of being alert to words and symbols redefined by the propagandist to serve his needs—like censorship has been today.” She doesn’t cite anything showing who supposedly redefined censorship or how it changed, but in 2006 Oxford defined censorship as: “1. Any regime or context in which the content of what is publically expressed, exhibited, published, broadcast, or otherwise distributed is regulated or in which the circulation of information is controlled. 2. A regulatory system for vetting, editing, and prohibiting particular forms of public expression, presided over by a censor. 3. The practice and process of suppression or any particular instance of this. This may involve the partial or total suppression of any text or the entire output of an individual or organization on a limited or permanent basis.” What’s her definition of censorship? She never gives it, but she does concede that posts being removed from social media can be considered censorship, which is a much narrower definition from what’s commonly accepted.

Disinformation is another definition that has gotten a makeover recently — some might even say plastic surgery. When disinformation became the hot new craze in 2016, it was defined as “deliberately false content, designed to deceive,” usually deployed by foreign governments. It now includes everything from information that can be seen as misleading to anything that contains an “adversarial narrative,” which the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) defines as stories, whether true or not, which “inflame social tensions by exploiting and amplifying perceived grievances of individuals, groups and institutions,” with institutions defined as including “the current scientific or medical consensus.” The GDI is an NGO, which receives funding from and works with several governments including the U.S., evaluates news outlets for what it considers disinformation and “aims to disrupt, defund and down-rank” sites on their naughty list, particularly by starving these sites of ad revenue. While most reasonable people would assume sites on these naughty lists would be ones such as Russia Today or Nazi Daily, they are actually filled mostly with regular center or center right outlets.Unherd, which is rated Center by AllSides and has a higher factuality score than The New York Times on Newsguard, found itself on the blacklist because it published pieces by Kathleen Stock, who critiques some transgender care methods. Reason Magazine, a libertarian publication that has a perfect score on NewsGuard, was ranked as one of the 10 riskiest sites — even though the GDI admits Reason “did largely refrain from perpetuating in-group out-group narratives or unfairly targeting certain actors via its reporting,” it nonetheless posed “high risk” because it used “sensationalized, emotional language” and didn’t moderate its comments section.

Yet, DiResta insists throughout the book that none of this is actually happening. She will gladly inform you that any mention of free speech is totally irrelevant because the only censorship on social media that ever took place was because of private companies making all their own decisions with no help from government whatsoever. Also, there has never been any censorship on social media at all. Even if there was, censorship is no different than the algorithm platforms use to rank content, anyways. Besides, you should love censorship! It tells only people you disagree with to shut up and will never creep its way towards your beliefs! Unless you’re a Nazi or something! (Or have slight disagreements with US policy deemed too important for you to have an opinion about…which is whatever Disinformation Warriors say is too important.)

(I plan on posting a more detailed piece in the coming days on my substack @thecorpuscallossum. There was just so much wrong with this book that this review is pretty much the TLDR of what I have scattered in my notes app)

[Elizabeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would give this one 6 stars if I could. I really can't recommend it enough, especially if you are interested in learning more about the ways that our algorithmically-ruled online culture seems to have led us into a hyperpartisan hellscape of harassment, misinformation, click-bait, and clout-chasing. The audiobook is an especially enjoyable listen.

[Richard]

I'm adding this to my ‘maybe’ shelf after reading Why MAGA Loves Russia and Hates Ukraine . That included the new-to-me jargon “Bespoke Realities”, which I recognized as a tighter neologism that might help folks understand the current and growing crises of social epistemology. So I read Welcome to Our New ‘Bespoke Realities’ , which then led to Mediating Consent (by this book’s author), who uses the phrase “a dissensus of bespoke pseudo-realities” before switching to “bespoke realities” later.

The author tells us this crisis began when, about twenty years ago, the internet allowed the “cost to publish” drop towards zero. Personally, I think it began earlier, in 1987, with the repeal of the F.C.C.’s Fairness Doctrine because it interfered with broadcasters’ First Amendment right to spout nonsense.

The world is facing critical problems: the climate crisis is the most obvious, but the creeping growth of the appeal of nationalist authoritarianism is also critical. Both of those could, potentially, be solved. (There are others, of course — artificial intelligence, for example.)

But the problem of our multiplying and mutually antagonistic “bespoke realities” has no apparent solution, and will exacerbate those existential twin crises, with feedback loops between all three of them.

I’m not optimistic. There’s a pretty convincing argument that humans are, by nature, not good at logical reasoning. A good introduction to this was presented by Elizabeth Kolbert in the 2017 article Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds . If you aren’t already familiar with that idea, you probably will be hard to persuade — that is, of course, part of the problem.

I started following human irrationality when I stumbled on game theory back in the late 1980s. I was thrilled when I found the Wikipedia page for the List of Cognitive Biases back in 2004. (It was pretty primitive then; just a list. It got much better in late 2005 when each item received a short explanation.)

But the scope of human miscognition just kept expanding. I don’t think there’s much hope.

[CatReader · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF at 75%. I started out thinking this book would be a 2024 post-genAI update into books like Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming and May Contain Lies: How Stories, Statistics and Studies Exploit Our Biases - And What We Can Do About It....instead, it's largely a biased look at recent sociopolitical issues with a curated heavy dose of trolls and conspiracy theory fringe groups. I found it rage-baiting and exhausting (blow-by-blow recaps of every detail of the COVID pandemic tend to do that to me) and had to stop.

I'll also add that when reading sociopolitical books, it's crucial to understand the source, the knowledge bases that form their opinions, and what conscious or subconscious biases they may bring to the narration. DiResta (b. 1981)'s background and job history is time spent working in finance and venture capital and volunteer work with an organization called Vaccinate California. She isn't an academic (her highest degree was a bachelor's, which isn't a research degree), a professional researcher, or a seasoned journalist like the authors of the books listed above and similar books on these topics. Not to say that laypeople can't write books like this, but the initial perception of credibility for laypeople writing books like this is inherently low.

My statistics:
Book 204 for 2024
Book 1804 cumulatively

[Teresa Dennis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I knew some of the material presented, but the entirety of the subject is illuminating and so depressing. The author offers possible solutions. I am not hopeful.

Everyone should read.

[Adam · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good ideas but hard to get past the author's biases. She focuses on certain issues completely ignoring and downplaying others. She chastizes some tactics while actively encouraging the same ones by those she agrees with. It's not about some tactics being bad it's that they're used by the wrong people. Some projection assuming that others all calculate their approach to informing like her team clearly did. And while many of the things she rails against are some I also believe to be false and those she encourages are too, there are some things that are glossed over that aren't in the fringes that don't deserve to be. It's the usage of extreme examples one wouldn't agree with that are being used as cover for other ideas.

Certainly an interesting exploration of what is, sometimes, actually going on behind the scenes. The solution though? A ministry of a truth? More censorship... oh wait sorry moderation. Constant reiteration of the old idea that a private company can control content any way they want. Yes we understand that is legally true but can also think that's wrong. Clearly not a fan of freedom of speech/expression in anything more than the legal minimum of what this means. It's fine. She's free to think that. She just seems convinced no reasonable people dislike moderation and the limiting of sharing information on social media platforms.

When I later watched an interview with her from 2019 she was much less biased, explaining how these Russian troll farms targeted many left wing as well as right wing causes. None of this was in the book however, as there was a clear escalation and radicalization which happened as she got personally wound up in this nonsense and appears to have cemented her involvement in her own tribe. But it's okay, because that's a good cause with correct information.

[Joy D · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The trust in the old top-down system of institutions, experts, authority figures, and mass media isn’t simply declining. Within a significant portion of the pubic it has been reallocated to the bottom-up system of influencers, algorithms, and crowds.”

This book addresses the reasons behind the recent polarization of American society. DiResta was a technical research manager at Stanford Internet Observatory and has done extensive work studying rumors, misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, and how false narratives spread online. This book focuses on the mechanisms and actors that shape online discourse and belief systems. She describes the ways social media algorithms put priority on serving up sensationalistic material that generates outrage, which then generates virality on social media and produces income for the influencers who propagate these false narratives. It is partly a memoir, and she outlines the ways she has been harassed both online and offline via doxing and in-person stalking, including showing up at her house.

One of the main points is how social media influencers have become powerful propagators of erroneous information. The more people narrow the list of whom they trust, the more powerful these folks become. It is worth remembering that the goal of the influencers is to gain power and wealth, with little (to no) regard for fact-checking or truthfulness. They use disclaimers such as saying “if true” to protect themselves from lawsuits. It is unfortunate that many people have now incorporated false information into their value systems, forming what DiResta calls “bespoke realities.” This explains to a large degree the reason rumors, misinformation, and outright lies have found equal footing alongside facts in American society. (The book applies more widely but DiResta is focused on the US.)

What is dispiriting to me is that the situation seems like Pandora’s Box – once these evils are released into society, how does one corral and correct them? After all, corrections to false statements are not given the same level of visibility. The author suggests a few actions that could help, such as additional moderation and modification of algorithms to serve up more factual content. This would, of course, require the cooperation of social media corporations. Those doing fact-checking should be "building up an audience through regular public communication." I found it informative and worth reading.

[Dodi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Renee DiResta's observations in Invisible Rulers won't surprise anyone familiar with social media, especially during the current election cycle in America. She discusses at length the influence of Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook on the opinions of those who use these platforms. Much of the material in this book is repetitive, and I thought some of it was biased as well. The bias is ironic considering the mission of the book in exposing bias in others. I agree with DiResta that social media should not be the sole source of information on current events. I think people rely on other unreliable outlets, such as late-night comedy programming for editorial outlooks also.

[Jeffrey Wells · Rating 5 out of 5]

Renée DiResta's Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality explores the complicated world of information warfare, exploring how a select group of actors manipulate public perception by disseminating falsehoods. DiResta, a renowned expert in the field of disinformation, presents a compelling narrative that combines meticulous research with insightful analysis, making this book a crucial read for anyone interested in understanding the modern landscape of information manipulation.

DiResta's book thoroughly examines the mechanisms and motivations behind the spread of disinformation. She identifies key players, from state actors to rogue individuals, who exploit social media platforms and traditional media to shape public opinion. The book is structured to guide the reader through the complex misinformation ecosystem, providing historical context and contemporary examples to illustrate the pervasive influence of these "invisible rulers."

One of the book's central themes is information as a weapon. DiResta argues that in the digital age, the battlefield has shifted from physical confrontations to virtual ones, where information control can determine the outcome of political, social, and economic conflicts. She illustrates this with case studies ranging from the Russian interference in the 2016 US elections to the anti-vaccine movement, showing how these orchestrated campaigns have real-world consequences.

Another key theme is the role of social media platforms in amplifying disinformation. DiResta critically examines how algorithms designed to maximize engagement inadvertently promote sensationalist and misleading content. She highlights the ethical responsibility of tech companies to address these issues, calling for more robust measures to combat the spread of false information. While she acknowledges the challenges and complexities involved, she also emphasizes the potential impact of responsible actions by these companies in mitigating the spread of disinformation.

DiResta's expertise in the field is evident throughout the book. Her analysis is backed by extensive research, including interviews with key figures and data-driven insights. This thorough approach not only lends credibility to her arguments but also provides a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, reassuring readers of the author's deep knowledge and insight.

The book's narrative style is both engaging and accessible. DiResta effectively balances technical explanations with anecdotal evidence, making complex topics understandable for a general audience. Her use of real-world examples brings the abstract concept of disinformation to life, demonstrating its tangible impact on society.

DiResta's call to action is particularly compelling. She identifies the problems and offers practical solutions, urging policymakers to enact regulations, tech companies to implement more robust measures, and the public to be more discerning in their information consumption. Her recommendations are grounded in her deep understanding of the digital landscape, making them feasible and impactful. By following these recommendations, readers can collectively work towards addressing the pervasive threat of disinformation.

While Invisible Rulers is a praiseworthy work, it has a few shortcomings. Some readers might find DiResta's focus on Western-centric examples limiting. Although she does touch upon disinformation campaigns in other parts of the world, the primary emphasis remains on the United States and Europe. A more global perspective would have enriched the narrative, providing a broader understanding of how disinformation operates in different cultural and political contexts.

The book occasionally takes a deep dive into technical jargon that might be overwhelming for readers unfamiliar with information warfare. While DiResta does an admirable job of explaining most concepts, there are moments where the complexity of the subject matter could benefit from further simplification.

Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality is a timely and important book that illuminates one of the most pressing issues of our time. Renée DiResta's comprehensive analysis of the disinformation landscape is both enlightening and alarming, highlighting the urgent need for collective action to address this pervasive threat.

Despite some minor criticisms, the book succeeds in its primary objective: to inform and empower readers to recognize and combat the spread of false information. DiResta's work is a crucial resource for anyone seeking to navigate the treacherous waters of the information age, equipping them with the necessary tools to discern truth from falsehood. Invisible Rulers is filled with clarity and truth in a world increasingly dominated by misinformation.


Fellow

[Heidi · Rating 3 out of 5]

My frustration with this book is that it seems to decouple the presence of far-right extremism on social media from the decades of work of traditional media publications, political figures and commentators—people we’d never call “influencers,” despite their massive influence—to normalize radical reactionary politics. (Not to mention the many policy decisions over time that have led to the rise of an ultraconservative class of billionaires exerting a disproportionate influence over public discourse…or the monopolization of that same discourse onto tech platforms governed by a few of those same billionaires.)

Without this insight, the book assigns a great deal of political power to any individual with a large enough social media following, far more than I think is warranted in the bigger context. DiResta’s term “bespoke realities” is at least effective in describing the way lies and distortions have found equal footing alongside facts both online and offline, yet I can’t help but feel like Naomi Klein already captured this best when describing the “mirror world” in her (frequently cited) book, Doppelganger. Overall, DiResta’s analysis feels short-sighted and lacking in rigor at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.

[Nana · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book really exposes and illustrates how the new political ruling class utilises algorithmically created echo chambers and polarisation in American society to spread propaganda. By weaving the author’s own experience and providing eye-opening insights into the ways in which groups and communities form online, start rumours, gain political power and then utilise those communication networks to spread propaganda, we truly get to appreciate how fucked up things are re the decline in American democracy.

[Jud Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

DiResta provides an *actual* reality check on the phenomenon of social-media-enabled "bespoke reality" and its use by those seeking to control, influence, and use it to their own (primarily political) advantage.

In the process she delineates an information universe that has been speedily and radically transformed by the digital revolution, with its handmaidens the Internet and AI. The subsequent democratization of publishing and broadcasting has been so breathtakingly swift and thorough that its consequences are just now coming into focus (with the help of books such as these). DiResta summarizes in her conclusion: "The collision of the rumor mill and the propaganda machine can't be undone. There will be no return to a handful of media translating respectable institutional thinking for the masses. ... [T]he pervasive, acrimonious dissensus we find ourselves in is simply untenable for democratic society. There is, of course, a deep irony that platforms built to connect the world have severed our ability to find common ground. We now have an actively disinformed citizenry, spread across bespoke realities. ... The nihilistic, loud voices among them ... cannot build consensus sufficient to build new institutions; the old institutions, meanwhile, struggle to form consensus sufficient to govern." [pp. 358-9]

She then notes that in his musing about governing, James Madison concluded that "faction" is such a part of human nature that people are "more disposed to vex and oppose each other than to co-operate for [the] common good." DiResta advocates that we follow the approach Madison took: that we work on "mitigating" harm: "Platforms can design with incentives beyond engagement in mind. Governments can prioritize transparency and the restoration of trust. Counterspeakers -- *all of us* [DiResta's emphasis] -- can leverage the very same networked tools that propagandists do." [p. 359]

If nothing else, participants in the social mediasphere -- especially those with institutional connections -- should read the book's final subsection, "Updating the Playbook: Notes for the Targeted" (pp. 352-358). "Don't think," DiResta writes "that it [meaning the shitstorm that happens when an online mob focuses its attention on an issue important to you] won't come for your field, industry, or brand. It will. In 2023, some online factions began harassing *librarians*." [p. 352] The emphasis is DiResta's. Her subtext is clear: nothing says squeaky clean like "librarian." Except that now they have become demonic groomers armed with child porn to a voluble subset of Internet wannabe witch-burners. Be ready, she says. Have a strategy. Engage. Know the tools. Use the tools. Be pro-active about the work you are doing: "building up an audience through regular public communication is key." [p. 356] Understand that virality is often a consequence of cooperation: "Form partnerships, build networks." [p. 357] The right people saying the right things through "networked counterspeech" can provide a "groundswell" that can withstand the harassers. [p. 358]

[Barb Middleton · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating look at people and institutions behind propaganda and rumor mills that exist on the Internet who influence and shape public opinion. The rumor mill gives you speculation or spectacle; that is a tantalizing or mysterious narrative produced more from common tropes than truth. The propaganda machine are carefully constructed narratives that sway opinions and manipulate emotions for the purposes of power and profit. The author does a good job building her case by exploring online influencers, algorithms, and crowds. She proves her points which got exhaustive at times. The audiobook is 15 hours. While powerful, my concentration drifted at the end when she talked about her experience as a victim of these propaganda and rumors. Her conclusion offers solutions and she stuck with her thesis throughout. I would have liked a few more viewpoints representing the other side and maybe less examples of cases but she kept proving a different point in her argument. There were a few times where I thought I’d like to more of the good the experts did. This is well-written, well-resourced, and thought-provoking.

[Jimbo · Rating 4 out of 5]

DiResta does a thorough job of explaining how social media sites have been gamed and abused to get to the situation we’re in now. Her first hand experience and and that of others was at times terrifying (Hotez for one). She does a good job describing the asymmetry of the battle - it’s much harder to debunk bullshit than to create it. However, in Rogan’s challenge for Hotez to debate Kennedy, you have someone who’s made their career bullshitting about vaccines and someone else who you know, is actually making vaccines. Hotez could ask RFK Jr basic immunology or biochemistry, but RFK Jr could just shit out his mouth. To DiResta’s recommendations, I can’t believe that telling me that fucking shit is against community standards will do one goddamn iota of good? Of course it’s worse to call someone an asshole an asshole than it is to actually be an asshole. I would have wanted more along the lines of more specific recommendations, and more than just one chapter of recommendations. I do have to say when a book leaves me wanting more, it has done a great job.

[Kyle Wright · Rating 5 out of 5]

Of the books I've read so far about social media dynamics, this is probably the best one. Still largely focused on diagnosis, although this one gets a bit more into speculative solutions than most, which is what I really want to read.

[Tom Walsh · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Comprehensive analysis of Social Media’s How’s & Why’s

DiResta uses her research and experience to build a strong case for the power and reach of the Influencers, Media, and Crowd that have dominated and overwhelmed the Culture of The World in the 21st Century. She paints a very scary picture of the current moment, documenting it in great detail as it played out in The Big Lie’s execution and subsequent fallout.

Since she and her Organization have seen the scenario from both sides, she is very aware of the dangers inherent and has some excellent prescriptions for regulatory possibilities that all of us should take seriously.

A worthwhile read. Four Stars. ****

[Olivia G · Rating 4 out of 5]

excellent arguments that make me question the online spaces in which I inhabit. 4/5

[Jerry · Rating 3 out of 5]

All about the dark sides of social media. How disinformation and misinformation are affecting our lives. Some interesting ideas on the enormous power influencers have by spreading their ideas to the huge numbers of people who rely on them for their information. Facts and truth often have no relation to some of the stories that are being spread, and there seems to be very little anyone can do. Overall it is a fairly depressing outlook.

[Vlad · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought this book would deal more with big players on the world stage like Black Rock kind of individuals. Instead...

The overall premise of the book digs into how propaganda so easily spreads throughout society (via social media) to manipulate public opinion and reshape the narrative.

But ultimately it just highlights the fact that the average person isn't the least bit intelligent, rational or discerning in the information they choose to accept into their lives. And that they will readily believe anything they see online at the drop of a hat. There is next to no critical thinking involved.

The book speaks to the numerous problems social media platforms have, like being incredibly slow to respond and 9.5 times out of 10 actively fueling the rapid proliferation of misinformation and straight up garbage content.

How governments are at a disadvantage because they have notoriously been atrocious at communicating quickly, clearly and effectively. Which gives ample time for misinformation to spread.

But this is EXACTLY what the government wants (in the sense that karma always comes back around). They have chosen to support this system for centuries now.

1. Developing free thinkers is the LAST thing schools teach (i.e they don't teach it at all). They are purposely designed for you to be a cog in the machine and they ALWAYS have been. They don't want people thinking for themselves anymore than a mouse wants a mouse trap.

2. Everyone in the world knows that these social media companies circumnavigate the world to make their apps as addictive as possible in order to keep you on the platform. Yet what does the government do to "protect" it's people? They keep accepting money from big tech and they actively allow them too further brainwash citizens as much as they please.

3. More and more people are losing trust in the government and rightfully so. The system in place is all about maintaining power and control over people. It's NOT about doing what's best for it's citizens and fostering an environment that encourages people to thrive and grow. Even the most mindless of individuals are beginning to see that the government and big companies actually DON'T have their best interest at heart. Every waking second of the day they want two things from you. Your money and your submission.

For the first third of the book:

I’ve never read a book on this topic yet it still all seemed incredibly elementary school to me. It’s like picking up a video game for the first time and breezing through the levels with so much ease you get bored.

It all felt like meh, tell me something I don’t know.

Now don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn’t say this part of the book was bad, but it's largely for the most unaware and mindless of consumers/social media users. So I personally wasn't a fan.

It’s definitely a very important and relevant topic to be discussing. And I’m really glad the author chose to shed light on it. Completely guessing/assuming this book is the first of it's kind, she sets up a good foundation on the topic of influencers and the changing media landscape.

She does a GREAT JOB laying things out for you, and she's off giving you the lay of the land like she's trynna sell you a whole 40 acres.

But personally the first third of the book was either info I already knew or it was incredibly basic/damn near common sense knowledge for any (marginally aware) user of social media.

Second Third

Another 1/3 of the book was about the 2020 virus. I hate when authors delegate so much time to one particular event in a book like this. A book that presents itself as being so much more than just 2 or 3 moments in history.

Not only is it a massive display of recency bias, but it also dates the book like crazy. It wastes time on one particular instance when so many more examples could've been discussed in support of the authors point.

And it’s like beating a dead horse 100x over. That topic was already brought up every 2 seconds as it was all playing out. The amount of energy, attention and over-dramatization people (who were doing absolutely nothing in their lives to make a difference or change things) gave to that incident was enough for 4 lifetimes over. To talk about it as much as she did was just adding to the excess.

All in all I wouldn't recommend this book.

3 stars instead of 2 for the fact that the topic of discreet social influences is always going to be an important one to pay attention to.

[Keith · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating and deeply depressing deep-dive into the way that social media has warped our brains. George Orwell assumed it would take a powerful centralized government to destroy humanity’s grasp on reality. Instead, it is mostly individual citizens doing it one tweet at a time. Renee DiResta’s book is well-researched and persuasively argued, with chapter 9 providing potential solutions to the mess we are in.

Invisible Rulers makes for an excellent follow-up on psychological concepts presented in Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me) .

QUOTES:
“Today, who controls the internet controls reality. We have all been given the capacity to influence. We all have the ability to persuade communities, amplify messages, create viral conspiracy theories, and instigate real-world protests. We have profound power but no commensurate responsibility. Very few of us have reckoned with what that power means.” (p. 12).
*
“This deliberate presentation of inflected information that attempts to further the agenda of those who create it is propaganda…Propaganda shapes public opinion not by simple persuasion but rather by manipulating perceptions and constructing favored narratives to guide our views. It deliberately and systematically frames issues, emphasizing certain aspects while downplaying others, with the intent of building a specific worldview or gaining support for an agenda. There is usually a core grain of truth; propaganda is rarely built on outright lies. It strategically uses collective myths, emotional stories, and existing fears to appeal to deeply held values.”
*
“In his 1928 book Propaganda, American social theorist and ‘father of public relations’ Edward Bernays dubbed the people with the power to shape public opinion 'invisible rulers.’ ‘There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions,’ he wrote. ‘It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by the shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.’” (p. 26).
*
“QAnon would not have existed as it does today without Facebook’s inadvertent algorithmic recruitment, plus its tools for sustained connection on a massive platform where users already spent a lot of time. At its worst, Twitter made mobs—and Facebook grew cults.” (p. 71)
*
“This trinity [social media influencers, algorithms, and the crowd] thrives on the proliferation of attention-capturing pseudo-events; sensationalism, spectacle, and tribalism are rewarded and reinforced. The environment is tailor-made for spreading rumors far and fast and for reinforcing connections and ideology within niches—not bridging across them.” (p. 77)
*
“Influencers’ combination of storytelling acumen, understanding how to work the structures of social media, clicking with an audience around a mutual passion, and reacting quickly and fluently to the fast-moving world of information on social media grants them an important power: they become aggregators and curators of the beliefs of the crowd.” (p. 86).
*
“Is crime rising or falling? There are, of course, real-world statistics that can answer this, but the vibes matter a lot for shaping public opinion online—which also translates to offline organizing or voting. Are more people being shot by police officers? Is inflation destroying the economy? Is America on the verge of civil war? The perception shaped in online communities, the collective mood and sense of the issue, is often more important than any actual facts.” (p. 89).
*
The anti-vaccine movement, for example—while growing—is still relatively small. Recent surveys suggest that those opposed are estimated at approximately 15 percent of the US population, even as the view appears to be a majority perspective based on social media vibes. Similarly, polling shows that only 18 percent of Americans support defunding the police, but that position often seems quite mainstream on Twitter and other platforms…a small, committed group can game (or more effectively use) a social platform to make their viewpoint seem dominant. A combination of effective networked crowds and compelling influencers means that some of us now perceive minority opinions as the majority viewpoint.” (p. 122).
*
There are real debates to be had about how platforms moderate and rightful concerns about unaccountable private power setting the rules of democratic debate on global communication platforms.45 But the framing battle to redefine all content moderation—even labeling an article—as “censorship” is purely a political ploy.” (p. 147).
*
“Truth is very rarely cut-and-dried. It never has been. The propagandist has always known that and exploited the kernel of truth, the gray area of uncertainty. Can anyone in a position of authority, for example, say with a straight face and with absolute certainty that no one will get hurt when taking a vaccine? Of course not. The health misinformation influencer leverages that reality, pointing to a prior mistake or overconfident comment: They are lying to you. They’ve always been liars. Just look at this PSA from a few years ago where they were saying that fat is bad for you.” (p. 262).
*
“The trust in the old top-down system of institutions, experts, authority figures, and mass media isn’t simply declining. Within a significant portion of the public it has been reallocated to the bottom-up system of influencers, algorithms, and crowds. This shift matters, because institutions are necessary for society to function, and discoveries borne of expertise are what propel us collectively forward. This has been true for centuries.” (p. 264).
*
“One consistent finding in polarization research is that members within a community often don’t feel comfortable criticizing or pushing back against the excesses of their own political faction. This relates to our earlier discussion of political identities becoming more global than local, as people are sorted on social media. Many participants fear that by speaking up against something they think is a bridge too far, they will be attacked by their own “team” for disloyalty or tarred as “bad progressives” or “bad conservatives” if they don’t align fully with the faction. They don’t want their own faction to come for them! And so they self-silence.56 They may also not want to be seen as undermining their side; after all, the other guys are worse.” (p. 288)
*
“Free speech is a cherished and foundational human right, one that people who believe in democratic societies should support in spirit even if the letter of the constitutional amendment applies specifically to the US government. However, the term—like its opposite, censorship—has undergone an extended reframing effort by factions who want wholly unencumbered attention and elimination of any kind of intervention by the private actors who host their speech. Downranking ragebait is censorship; actioning the accounts of individuals who started harassment mobs is censorship; labeling disputed or false claims is censorship, these very loud voices argue. In reality, platforms have their own freedom of speech and association rights as they decide what they will carry and what they will amplify. Even Infowars, a website run by Alex Jones, which caters to conspiracy theorists and has produced the sort of mobs that harass victims of mass shootings, has a terms of service…Social media platforms and most online comments sections belong to private businesses, not the government, and their business depends on keeping the greatest possible number of users happy. But the ref-working ragemongers of the Internet of Beefs don’t want (their audiences) to see it that way.
The fight over ‘free speech’ is about preferential dissemination. It is a fight about algorithmic amplification, share of voice, and the ability to reach vast audiences at no cost—recast as if they were rights. It’s a fight for power, for dominance of communication infrastructure and the capacity to shape public opinion” (p. 297).
*
“The tendency among experts is often to wait until they know all the facts. But this is no longer the right approach; silence simply gives others the opportunity to shape the narrative via the rumor mill. It’s fine to say, ‘We don’t know yet’ or ‘Information is still coming in; please be patient’—even these comments reinforce that the institution is aware of the concern, paying attention, and trying to figure out the facts. But simply waiting it out and not participating in the conversation because consensus hasn’t solidified leaves a void for others to fill.” (p. 356).
*

***************************************************************************

[Image: Book Cover]

Citation:
DiResta, R. (2024). Invisible rulers: The people who turn lies into reality (eBook). PublicAffairs. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0C...

Title: Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality
Author(s): Renee DiResta
Year: 2024
Genre: Nonfiction - Social Science, Politics, & Technology
Page count: 425 pages
Date(s) read: 5/1/25 - 5/4/25
Book 89 in 2025
***************************************************************************

[Angela · Rating 3 out of 5]

Honestly, this is veering very close to a 2.5

I’ll be honest, I had high hopes after the first half but once I hit that halfway mark it’s like the author just lost the plot. She also mentioned Naomi Klein so much, I would suggest just saving yourself the time reading Klein.

Right out of the gate, if you - in the year of our lord 2024 - state that the ADL is a legitimate source without a trace of irony? I immediately don’t trust you. I also am very disappointed in the treatment of the discussion surrounding Oct. 7. After chapter after chapter of very clear Opinions™️, to immediately start waffling and finger pointing to AI? You could have just left it out. You could have just not mentioned it because you said nothing and added nothing of substance.

Secondly, there is an entire (lengthy!!) chapter about a specific, targetted campaign against the author's own organization, and it adds zero value to the discussion of invisible rulers and propaganda. Rather, it seems as though the author took the opportunity to defend herself and her organization’s activities against malicious actors and a hate campaign. Again - lost the plot. The history of "influencing" as a means of spreading information was probably the most interesting part of the book for me. The Russian troll farms, Gamergate and the 2020 elections felt more cobbled together and/or already over-analyzed with more extremely overlong chapters.

Tl;dr - very repetitive, a slog to get through and doesn’t add much to the discourse. However if you are largely checked out of American politics, don’t understand how facts and fact-checking work, don’t engage in social media and need a dumbed-down version of current political events - THIS IS FOR YOU. Otherwise, skip it.

[Rob · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an eye-opening exploration of how influencers and their audiences have shaped our current information ecosystem, for better or worse (and it’s mostly for worse). DiResta’s clear writing makes even complex concepts easy to understand, but the book’s disturbing implications about our current information culture in the United States can be a difficult pill to swallow. It’s rare that I consider quitting a book because of the content over the writing, but I definitely struggled. In the end, if knowledge is power, the book has been worth the struggle.

One of the book’s strengths is its detailed examination of the history and development of the post-truth society. DiResta begins with the anti-vaccine movement and the measles outbreak, then moves through the evolution of propaganda from the printing press to the internet. She also explores the role of influencers in shaping culture, politics, and society, and how their unchecked power has led to the spread of disinformation and the erosion of trust in traditional institutions.

The book also delves into the psychological and social factors that make people susceptible to propaganda and misinformation. DiResta discusses the phenomenon of crowd behavior and how it can lead to the formation of “bespoke realities” where individuals only see and hear information that confirms their existing beliefs. She also examines the role of algorithms in amplifying and spreading disinformation, and how they can be used to manipulate public opinion.

While “Invisible Rulers” is a sobering read, it also offers some hope for the future. DiResta discusses potential solutions to the problems she outlines, including the need for better education, more transparency from social media platforms, and a greater emphasis on critical thinking skills. She also highlights the importance of individual responsibility in combating the spread of disinformation and the need for a shared desire to live in the same reality.

Overall, “Invisible Rulers” is a must-read for anyone concerned about the state of our information culture. It is a chilling reminder of the power of propaganda and the importance of critical thinking in the digital age. While the book’s conclusions may be depressing, they also serve as a call to action for individuals and society as a whole to work towards a more informed and truthful future.

–This review was partially drafted by A.I. (Gemini) with a fairly lengthy prompt containing my opinions and the notes I took while reading. Much of the review is rewording of the prompt I entered and my notes. –

[George · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the best book about disinformation campaigns, social media influencers, and propaganda that you will ever read.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

My oh my!!!!! Things I was teaching back in the 70s along with things I was teaching at the start of the Internet. Yet too many Americans have never been introduced to these ideas about propaganda. Dear MAGA Republicans and overbearing Democrats...you need to read this book and see why you have gotten pidgeon-holed into the groups you now cling to....

[Lesley De Lugo · Rating 4 out of 5]

A sobering look at how we are manipulated by online sources, no longer the province of vetted organizations and public media, whose faces and bylines typically reveal a history of fact-checked information. These new players only need to plant a small seed and let others repeat it until everyone’s talking about it as if it were true, or really happened. Exhaustively researched and annotated, this will make you question your choices, sure, but will also prompt you to do your own research, which you should do anyway.

[Yates Buckley · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good survey of actual cases and dynamics in the world of dark persuasion. However it is singular that in such an exciting subject the book is not as exciting to read. The stories are journalistic and a bit impersonal and driy despite the underlying drama.

Also i wish the solution section of the book was much longer and in depth as this is a very interesting part of the text.

[Leigh · Rating 5 out of 5]

I low key think this is one of the most important books written about social media and society thusfar. Everyone should read it.

[Jeremy Lucas · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 2010, a church leader that I knew (and respected) put up a photo with a caption that felt misleading, something about a million-man march in Washington to protest Obama's "takeover" of health care. He was sharing something he had seen, as he often did, frequently without concern for its veracity. Turned out, after I did a little digging (didn't take much for a library-school grad student), the photo was from Dallas, and it was only a few hundred, with a caption that implied it was happening in DC. So I pointed out the discrepancy and his answer caught me off guard. He said he didn't care. He cared about the message, not the photo, the premise of which was an act of American resistance to so-called tyranny. That exchange felt, for me, like a fringe-level anomaly, as if he were an exception, as if most people wanted their social media postings to be true. Accurate. Honest. But I was naive. Idealistic. Short-sighted.

Fifteen years later, this book feels every bit a reminder of those early signs, followed by years of rising falsehoods that are so consistently and blatantly incorrect--nothing but innuendo and rumor and reversed propaganda--that I can't understand what others aren't seeing, or why they're falling into this hellscape of lies that masquerade as truth, all of it exponentially and increasingly more absurd by the day or the hour. Invisible Rulers isn't what I thought it might be, nothing about Davos, or a secret cabal of billionaires at the root of the world's morass. This is truly about the invisible hand that causes our continued, daily angst, the hand of people we keep trusting--anyone with an opinion we already like or empathize with, anyone who seems common or innocent, anyone who affirms our doubts--who then abuse that trust by dishing out (or "sharing") the next piece of misleading or distracting information, some of it straight off the pages of The National Enquirer, dishes that we eat up and eat up, until the next filler meal, and the million more slop-bowls that come after that, few of us ever questioning anything we're fed, or asking about the ingredients, or saying no to the whole feast.

Invisible Rulers is unsettling because it's deeply familiar to anyone who has ever worked in education, or information, or an otherwise stable, reliable world where trust is essential for all functioning communities and institutions, flawed as they may be. As I wrote about in Two Flies & a Wet Mosquito, we're in desperate need of more short, steady reflections that give us something to grip amidst our turbulent world. DiResta doesn't give you any peace or reflection here, but it's a necessary, crucial accounting of the last twenty years, between the rise of social media and what it is today, little more than a cesspool of chambered, narcissistic, rage-feeding algorithms.

[Miss Katiebelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book and the level of research that has been put into writing it. Was a fascinating read.
My criticism is not of the author, but one that is now sadly very common for books on extremely topical and still evolving issues around the rise of the far right, misinformation and disinformation in the media environment.

The problem is that despite being released last year there are already aspects that feel dated and perhaps even naive in their optimism.
Written and published before the 2024 US election and before the staggering series of events since Donald Trump won, it becomes clear that the author gave far too much benefit of the doubt to social media platforms and especially their owners. Social media companies seem to be presented as sometimes bumbling, sometimes reactive rather than proactive, but never actively malign. However, since Elon Musk has reinvented himself as the proxy president and turned Twitter into a propaganda tool for the right, and since Mark Zuckerberg has fully capitulated to the right, this, position already feels dated. The leverage of free speech into everybody believing there is an absolute right to not only say awful, hateful and potentially dangerous things, but also have access to arenas that grant access to an audience of potentially millions has spiralled so rapidly that I am not sure anyone really grasped what was coming.

Moderation on social media may previously have done a broadly ok job of stopping the worst of the worst, but it seems like there is no longer any interest from the overlords in protecting platform users, or society at large and moderation is now labelled as censorship.

Yes, the book does cover how Twitter was morphed into X and became less trustworthy as a source of information as well as a breeding ground for mobs and far right views, supported and amplified by Musk, but it does fail to predict (I mean how could it?) just how far things would go in such a short amount of time.

I still recommend this book as a very interesting and important source on the risks of "influence" in society with the caveat that if you are looking at what is going on in the world you may have a few "oh my sweet summer child" moments knowing it was written in the "before times", which is shocking considering that despite everything I just wrote, this book is hardly a rose-tinted glasses look at how the world we live in is being shaped by influencers.

[Kevin Prinoski · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Invisible Rulers - The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality” (Renée DiResta, 2024) examines the evolution of online manipulation of information into weaponized deceit and influence. As the former technical research manager of the Stanford Internet Observatory, the author is an expert in the studies of online abuse (misinformation/rumors, disinformation/propaganda and harassment) and coordinated influence/disinformation operations run by foreign entities. DiResta outlines the progression of propaganda through advancements in communication technologies within print, radio, and television to its current and most potent form rampant online in social media. The internet has greatly enhanced the spread of disinformation for purposes of influence by offering the advantage of rapid dissemination and widespread mobilization of like-minded individuals. Inconsistent regulation of posted content (largely platform specific) and the anonymity made possible by the internet greatly diminishes or removes accountability and self-restraint for actions online. That’s problematic when online posts lead to real life actions and repercussions. Even absurd online rumours (which are distinct from intentional propaganda) can be consequential. The virulence of online propaganda stems from the mutually dependant and self-reinforcing triad of algorithms, influencers, and crowds which are each described in detail. On the internet “if you make it trend, you make it true” (page 44) and crafted versions of reality (ie. propaganda) can influence large numbers of people quickly. This has disturbing implications regarding elections, vaccine hesitancy/refusal, and climate change denial. Renée DiResta eloquently dissects online threats which affect everyone as the internet and social media steadily intertwine with our lives. This book is highly relevant and of special interest to agencies or individuals involved in formal medical, scientific, political, or academic engagements which are frequently targeted by online disinformation and propaganda efforts. I highly recommend this excellent book.