Let's explain the dynamics of participatory disinfo/propaganda in the online era. Elites put out strategic/distorted frames (e.g. "immigration is harmful"). Audiences generate content to fit the frames (e.g. rumors about pets). Influencers amplify & pass the content back up the chain to the elites.
"I just wanted to do some low-grade racist shit-stirring on Facebook/NextDoor and didn't mean for an entire presidential campaign to adopt this as their platform" is kinda reasonable and also kinda how we got here www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...
The woman behind an early Facebook post that helped spark baseless rumors about Haitians eating pets told NBC News that she feels for the immigrant community.
Nudging consent
“Communism is when our government creates our currency to pay for our General Welfare”
What dynamics are involved when a US disinfo expert speculates (without basis and easily disproven) that domestic KKK activity might actually be the work of a foreign government?
And well-meaning liberals repeat the memes in an effort to mock the true believers, giving more oxygen to the original racist lies in the process, & thus helping cement the frame in the public conscience.
Like the fecal oral route of transmission in contagions
Crowd sourcing stochastic terrorism triggers.
What does it say about the audience who choose to believe negative information that feeds their narrative without factual information and their willingness to help promote untrue information.
What constitutes "elite" in your explanation?
In other words it's like a computer. Bad data in bad data out.