Lesson Report:
# Title: Final Digital Hygiene Toolkit Presentations and Peer/Instructor Feedback
This class was devoted to student group presentations of final propaganda/disinformation intervention projects. Each group presented a target propaganda narrative, identified a vulnerable audience, explained a proposed “digital hygiene” or pre-bunking/reframing toolkit, and received feedback focused on audience trust, backfire effects, platform strategy, and how to move from awareness to action.
—
# Attendance
## Absences Mentioned
– **No students were explicitly marked absent in the transcript.**
– **Number of absences mentioned:** 0
## Attendance/Participation Notes
– The session took place online via Zoom/stream.
– Several groups presented final project drafts: **Group 8, Group 2, Group 3, Group 5, Group 6, and Group 7.**
– Some speakers were identifiable by name and matched to the roster; several presenters were not named clearly in the transcript and are therefore listed as **uncertain** where appropriate.
—
# Topics Covered
## 1. Opening and Transition into Final Group Presentations
– The instructor began by starting the stream and moving directly into student presentations.
– The format was framed as a sequence of group project presentations, with each group expected to present for approximately **seven minutes**.
– The first presentation was by **Group 8**, whose spokesperson was identified as **Kendirbaeva Kanykei Oskonovna**.
—
## 2. Group 8 Presentation: Anti-Western Propaganda in Iran
### Topic and Propaganda Narrative
– **Group 8** presented a project on **anti-Western propaganda in Iran**.
– The group focused on Iranian state or state-aligned narratives framing the West as a threat to:
– Faith.
– Identity.
– Dignity.
– Social stability.
– Religious authenticity.
– The group identified key propaganda framings such as:
– “The West wants to steal your faith and identity.”
– “Western influence is dangerous to society.”
– The West as an immoral or corrupting outside force.
– The need to resist “Evil West” influence in order to preserve pure religion.
### Target Audience
– The group’s target audience was **young people in Iran, approximately ages 16–25**.
– Kanykei explained that this generation is active on social media and exposed to state narratives through online spaces and news outlets.
– The group argued that young people may be especially vulnerable because they encounter state narratives that blur the distinction between:
– Genuine religious belief.
– Government instrumentalization of religion.
– Anti-Western propaganda.
### Toolkit Strategy: Pre-bunking Website
– The group described its intervention as a **pre-bunking interactive webpage**.
– Kanykei explained that the toolkit was meant to educate people before they encounter propaganda so that they develop resistance to manipulative narratives.
– The webpage included:
– A definition of propaganda.
– Explanations of concepts used by the Iranian government in media narratives.
– Emotion-recognition or reflection questions to help users identify how certain narratives make them feel.
– Interactive elements where users could click on terms or topics, such as cultural influence, to receive a description.
– A section containing propaganda-style headlines or framing examples.
– A parallel “neutral version” of the same message, designed to show how a propagandistic statement could be reframed in a more neutral and less manipulative tone.
– A “speech of the leader” section with direct speeches from Iranian political leaders, though the group noted that some of the examples were older because this was still a draft version.
– Buttons linking users to original sources.
### Propaganda Techniques Identified
– The group highlighted **othering** as a major propaganda technique in Iranian anti-Western narratives.
– Examples included:
– Casting the West as evil or corrupt.
– Positioning Western influence as something society must resist.
– Presenting religious purity as directly opposed to Westernization.
– The group emphasized that propaganda in this context often constructs a sharp divide between “pure religion” and “Western influence.”
### Distribution Plan
– The group planned to distribute the webpage through:
– Instagram posts.
– Possibly Facebook posts.
– A link in the bio of a social media account.
– The Instagram draft used language such as:
– “Feel unsure what to believe when you see the headlines?”
– The group also planned to create multiple posts that would direct users to the website.
### Future Development
– Kanykei noted that the group might include **mini interactive tests**.
– One proposed activity would show users a propaganda frame and a neutral frame, asking them to identify which is which.
– The group also considered expanding beyond Instagram to:
– YouTube.
– X/Twitter.
– Other media channels active in Iran.
– Kanykei clarified that in a real-world version the project would be in **Farsi**, but for the class assignment it was presented in English.
### Peer Question: Backfire Effect
– **Samatbekova Elaiym Samatbekovna** asked a question about whether the toolkit might accidentally reinforce the very propaganda it seeks to challenge.
– Elaiym’s concern was that if the website presents a “bad” propagandistic example before the neutral version, users who already believe the propaganda might feel even more aligned with the manipulative statement.
– She framed the issue as a possible **backfire effect**, in which a person’s beliefs become more entrenched after exposure to corrective material.
### Group Response
– Kanykei responded thoughtfully and acknowledged that this was an important issue.
– She said the group intended to use **empathetic and gentle language** in its posters and website to reduce resistance.
– She admitted that the group had not yet fully solved the problem and would need to think more about how to address it directly.
### Instructor Feedback
– The instructor agreed with Elaiym’s concern and said it was close to the question he had planned to ask.
– He praised:
– The topic selection.
– The target audience.
– The richness of the anti-Western narrative in Iran as a case study.
– However, he warned that the current website risked sounding like it was:
– Presenting Iranian government speeches.
– Declaring them wrong.
– Offering “corrections” from what could be perceived as an outside or Western position.
– The instructor emphasized that someone who already believes the state narrative might reject the toolkit immediately as an example of the very Western influence they distrust.
– He advised the group to clarify in the final version:
– Why the audience trusts state narratives so strongly.
– What emotions underlie that trust.
– How the toolkit will establish itself as trustworthy.
– How the group will avoid appearing to be the Western outsider that the propaganda warns against.
—
## 3. Transition Between Presentations
– After Group 8, the instructor checked which groups remained.
– He listed Groups **2, 3, 5, 6, and 7** as still needing to present.
– **Turgunalieva Nazbike Baktybekovna** volunteered her group to present next.
– The instructor initially guessed the wrong group number, but Nazbike clarified that they were **Group 2**.
—
## 4. Group 2 Presentation: Anti-Immigrant Disinformation in the United States
### Topic and Core Narrative
– **Group 2** presented on **anti-immigrant disinformation in the United States**, specifically the narrative:
– “Immigrants are taking our opportunities.”
– The group emphasized that their goal was not to attack or deny people’s fears.
– Instead, they wanted to:
– Understand where anti-immigrant beliefs come from.
– Encourage resistance to manipulative framing.
– Redirect attention toward deeper structural causes of economic insecurity.
### Target Audience
– The target audience was described as **local workers in the United States, ages approximately 20–45**.
– The group characterized this audience as:
– Economically insecure.
– Dependent on wages/salaries.
– Afraid of losing jobs.
– Unsure about their economic future.
– They identified several reasons for vulnerability:
– Many have secondary or vocational education, limiting career mobility.
– Many work in competitive sectors such as:
– Factory work.
– Driving.
– Service jobs.
– They face pressure from rising prices while wages do not increase proportionally.
– They may feel that their lives are getting harder and need someone to blame.
### Social Media Evidence and Emotional Climate
– The first presenter showed quotes gathered from platforms such as YouTube.
– The quotes reflected anger, fear, and resentment toward immigrants.
– The group identified emotional responses in online comment sections, including:
– Aggression.
– Fear.
– Anger.
– Feelings of injustice.
– They argued that algorithms intensify these feelings:
– If a person watches one anti-immigrant post, the platform recommends similar content.
– Repetition gradually changes or reinforces the person’s interpretation of the issue.
– The user can become more angry and more convinced that immigrants are the cause of economic problems.
### Central Questions Raised
– The group framed the project around questions such as:
– Are immigrants really the main cause of local workers’ problems?
– Or are the problems more connected to labor market conditions, low wages, and company policies?
– How can people resist propaganda without feeling attacked?
### Toolkit Platform and Content Format
– **Nazbike** explained that the toolkit would be built primarily for **Instagram**, with content cross-published to **Facebook**.
– The group selected these platforms because social media research showed that YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram are among the top platforms in the United States.
– Their content plan included:
– Three carousel posts.
– A teaser/hook.
– Posts that do not treat the audience as unintelligent or morally wrong.
– A gentle approach designed to avoid shame or embarrassment.
### Persuasive Strategy
– The group emphasized a non-confrontational approach.
– They wanted to avoid saying directly:
– “You are wrong.”
– “Your fear is fake.”
– “You are immoral.”
– Instead, they planned to communicate:
– “Your concerns are real.”
– “But the explanation you have been given may be incomplete.”
– The purpose was to help the audience step back from anti-immigrant framing without feeling attacked.
### Carousel Structure
– The planned carousel sequence included:
1. **Emotional Teaser**
– Designed to evoke and acknowledge emotions such as fear, worry, and frustration.
2. **Fact-Based Reframing**
– Explaining that immigrants are not the main problem.
– Highlighting job opportunities, labor policy, and wage inequality as alternative explanations.
3. **Myth vs. Reality**
– Presenting common anti-immigrant claims as myths.
– Pairing those myths with data, facts, and alternative explanations.
4. **Real Story**
– The group proposed using the story of **Dean Bailey**, a business owner with a trucking company who was deported after a mistake.
– They emphasized the human consequences of deportation, including children who were U.S. residents being left without their father.
### Intended Audience Actions
– The group wanted the audience to:
– Share the carousel or video.
– Follow the account/toolkit.
– Unfollow or mute three accounts that constantly provoke anger.
– Gather with coworkers and discuss the issue.
– Shift the conversation away from blaming immigrants and toward discussing wages, employment conditions, and employer policies.
– They argued that these actions were realistic because the toolkit did not demand immediate large-scale political action.
### Theoretical Justification
– Another presenter, likely **Yousufzai Khadija** based on the transcript’s unclear “Hadicha/Khadija” phrasing, explained the theoretical basis of the toolkit.
– The group drew on **Jonathan Haidt’s elephant and rider metaphor**:
– Emotion comes first.
– Reasoning comes later to justify feelings.
– The presenter argued that simply presenting statistics would not change minds because people first react emotionally to fear of job loss.
– Therefore, the toolkit first acknowledges emotion, then slowly introduces new ideas.
### De-radicalization and Non-Judgmental Framing
– The group connected its approach to de-radicalization literature.
– They argued that when people feel judged or criticized, they resist.
– Therefore, the toolkit uses soft language such as:
– “Your concerns are real.”
– “But the explanation may be incomplete.”
– This was intended to make users more open to reframing.
### Reframing and Political Cognition
– The group referenced **George Lakoff** and the idea that people interpret information through frames.
– Their strategy was to shift the frame from:
– “Immigrants are the threat”
to
– “Economic insecurity is linked to wages, labor markets, and employer practices.”
– They also referenced **in-group/out-group dynamics**, explaining that if people feel their group is attacked, they become defensive.
– The toolkit therefore highlights shared identities such as:
– Workers.
– Families.
– People facing economic pressure.
### Storytelling and Echo Chambers
– The group planned to use storytelling because people often trust real stories more than abstract statistics.
– They also referenced **Philip Howard** and social media algorithms.
– They explained that platforms repeatedly show users content that matches their existing beliefs, creating echo chambers.
– The toolkit attempts to change users’ “content habits” by encouraging them to unfollow harmful accounts and seek safer content.
### Instructor Question: Moving from Awareness to Action
– The instructor praised the group for clearly laying out intended actions.
– He asked specifically how the group planned to achieve the last two actions:
– Getting people to unfollow accounts they may already feel strongly connected to.
– Getting people to talk with coworkers.
– He noted the delicate balance between not offending the audience and still asking them to take meaningful action.
### Group Response
– A group member answered that the content would begin by acknowledging the audience’s assumptions and concerns.
– The teaser would use hooks that mirror the audience’s feelings, such as acknowledging that immigrants are present in the labor market and that people feel opportunities are limited.
– The group hoped that once users were drawn in, later slides would introduce “the other side” of the issue.
– Regarding coworker discussion, the group suggested tracking followers and encouraging people to share or discuss the issue with people in their workplace or social environment.
### Instructor Feedback
– The instructor said the proposed strategies sounded promising, but their success would depend on execution.
– He advised the group to apply a “cringe test”:
– If the content sounds like outsiders preaching to the audience, it risks failure.
– He encouraged them to ensure that the audience does not feel talked down to or morally judged.
– He praised the group for its work and said the project was off to a strong start.
—
## 5. Group 3 Presentation: Digital Hygiene Toolkit on the “Great Replacement” Narrative in France
### Transition
– **Akylbekova Amina Batyrbekovna** asked to present next.
– The instructor again initially guessed the wrong group number, but Amina clarified that they were **Group 3**.
### Topic and Narrative
– Group 3 presented a **digital hygiene toolkit** focused on the **“Great Replacement” narrative** in France.
– Amina introduced the concept as a narrative associated with French author **Renaud Camus**.
– The narrative claims that:
– White Christian French and European populations are being deliberately replaced by non-white, predominantly Muslim immigrants from Africa and the Middle East.
– The group connected this narrative to recent French political discourse, especially rhetoric used by **Éric Zemmour** during his 2022 presidential campaign.
– Zemmour was described as repeatedly invoking replacement-adjacent claims, including the idea that white people will soon be replaced by non-white, non-European immigrants.
### Why the Narrative Matters
– The group argued that in France, a significant portion of the population is at least familiar with or partially receptive to parts of the narrative.
– Amina explained that the narrative spreads through:
– Social media platforms.
– Emotionally charged messaging.
– Simplified explanations of complex issues.
– Frequent repetition.
– Over time, repetition creates:
– Familiarity.
– Perceived credibility.
– A sense that the message may be true even when claims are contested or misleading.
### Framing as Manipulative Communication
– The group emphasized that the problem is not only inaccurate information.
– Instead, it is a broader form of **manipulative communication**, using:
– Emotional framing.
– Repetition.
– Identity-based fear.
– Simplified causal explanations.
– The result can be:
– Increased fear.
– Increased uncertainty.
– Social division.
– Influence on political attitudes and voting behavior.
– Oversimplification of immigration and cultural change.
### Target Audience
– The toolkit was designed for **French adults aged 18–55**.
– The group chose this audience because they are active across:
– Facebook.
– Instagram.
– TikTok.
– The audience frequently engages with content about:
– National identity.
– Cultural change.
– Economic stability.
– Job security.
– Public safety.
– The group argued that this audience is vulnerable to material framed as:
– Urgent.
– Threatening.
– Identity-relevant.
– Such content triggers fast emotional reactions and can reduce critical evaluation before people share or accept the information.
### Toolkit Format: 60-Second Reels/TikTok Videos
– Amina explained that the group would create a series of **60-second Instagram Reel or TikTok videos**.
– They chose short videos because:
– Reels and TikToks are widely used across the target age range in France.
– Short videos allow repeated exposure in a familiar environment.
– They are more likely to be watched fully than longer formats.
– They are easily shared.
– Each video would include:
– Clear captions.
– Subtitles for accessibility.
– On-screen text.
– Real-world examples.
– Minimal graphics.
– The design priority was clarity rather than complexity.
### Video Structure
– A second presenter, not clearly identifiable in the transcript, explained the video structure.
– Each video would include:
1. **Hook**
– Designed to grab attention and trigger recognition.
– Example questions:
– “Do you think France is being replaced?”
– “When did you start to believe this?”
– The presenter connected this to Jonathan Haidt’s idea that emotional reaction comes first.
2. **Real-Life Example**
– The video would show a social media post or message similar to what viewers encounter online.
3. **Breakdown**
– The toolkit would explain communication tactics used in the example, such as:
– Emotional framing.
– Fear or anger triggers.
– Selective evidence.
– Hiding parts of statistics.
– “Us vs. them” narratives.
4. **Practical Tip**
– Each video would end with a behavioral recommendation, such as:
– Pause before sharing.
– Check sources.
– Identify emotional triggers.
### Strategies and Expected Impact
– The group described four main design principles:
– Use a **non-judgmental tone** to avoid defensiveness.
– Use simple language accessible to viewers without specialized political knowledge.
– Keep the videos short to match actual online behavior.
– Teach people **how to think about information**, rather than telling them what to believe.
– Expected impacts included:
– Improved recognition of manipulation techniques.
– More careful thinking before believing or sharing information.
– Less rapid sharing of misleading or emotionally manipulative posts.
– Reduced spread of misinformation online.
### Instructor Response
– The instructor thanked Group 3 and gave virtual applause.
– Because of time pressure and the number of groups remaining, the instructor skipped the question period for this presentation.
—
## 6. Group 5 Presentation: Taiwanese Digital Hygiene Sticker Pack — “Don’t Let Them Write Your Ending”
### Topic and Core Narrative
– **Group 5** presented a project titled **“Don’t Let Them Write Your Ending.”**
– **Zulumbekov Alikhan Dastanbekovich** introduced the project.
– The toolkit targeted a narrative circulating among Taiwanese audiences:
– “The United States will abandon Taiwan.”
– The group framed the narrative as increasingly present online and influential in shaping how people think about:
– Security.
– International relations.
– Taiwan’s geopolitical future.
### Strategic Choice: Not Direct Argument, but Communication Friction
– Alikhan explained that instead of directly arguing against the narrative, the project tries to help people think more critically during everyday communication.
– The group focused on messages that appear to come from real people rather than official propaganda bots.
– Example message:
– “America causes trouble, then bails.”
– The group argued that this kind of message can be especially powerful because:
– It feels organic.
– It appears in the words of ordinary people.
– It spreads through social trust rather than obvious external influence.
### Target User Persona
– The group presented a persona named **Wei Lin**, a 24-year-old young adult in Taiwan.
– Wei Lin was described as:
– Not pro-China.
– Not politically extreme.
– Pragmatic.
– Economically anxious.
– Low-trust toward institutions.
– Active on TikTok and social media.
– Involved in many LINE group chats.
– The group emphasized that the target user is not ignorant and may even try to fact-check information.
– However, they remain vulnerable to repeated narratives that appear frequently across social media.
### Platform Logic: TikTok and LINE
– The group distinguished between two platform roles:
– **TikTok**: where users are exposed to narratives.
– **LINE**: where decisions are made and narratives spread through trusted networks.
– Alikhan cited data:
– Approximately **41.5% of TikTok users in Taiwan** believe pro-U.S. positions may lead to war.
– This compares to approximately **31% of non-users**.
– Around **93% of the Taiwanese population uses LINE**.
– The group concluded that misinformation spreads through:
– Family groups.
– Friend groups.
– Trusted private chats.
– Therefore, their intervention focuses on everyday communication inside LINE chats.
### Toolkit: “Wei Lin Tries” / LINE Sticker Pack
– Another presenter, not clearly identifiable, described the toolkit as a **LINE sticker pack**.
– The sticker pack included approximately **18 stickers** organized into tiers:
1. **Tier 1: Pauses**
– Stickers that create a soft interruption in the conversation.
– Example function: asking for a source without accusing anyone.
2. **Tier 2: Pattern Recognition**
– Stickers naming common disinformation moves through idioms or culturally resonant phrases.
3. **Tier 3: Taking a Stand**
– Stickers that affirm courage or action against fatalism.
– These are meant to be used sparingly.
4. **Tier 4: Repair**
– Stickers designed to repair social harm if a correction creates embarrassment or tension.
### Tier 1: Pause Vocabulary
– Tier 1 stickers used cute Shiba-style reactions designed to look like normal sticker behavior rather than political activism.
– A sticker asking “source?” was described as a question rather than an accusation.
– Its purpose was to create a five-second pause for the whole group without forcing confrontation.
### Tier 2: Pattern Recognition
– Tier 2 used idioms to name disinformation patterns.
– The presenter argued that using older cultural language makes the intervention harder to dismiss as partisan or Western fact-checking.
– Instead of labeling a post “fake,” the sticker names a familiar pattern of distortion.
### Tier 3: Taking a Stand
– Tier 3 used classical idioms to counter fatalism.
– One idea was to encourage doing what is right even when it is difficult.
– The presenter explained that Tier 3 should be used rarely, possibly once per user per month.
– Tier 1 would do most of the everyday work, while Tier 3 provides moral weight or a stronger signal when needed.
### Tier 4: Repair and Social Trust
– Tier 4 was described as an underrated but important part of the toolkit.
– The group recognized that stickers can become weaponized if they shame the sender.
– Repair stickers included phrases such as:
– “I also got fooled.”
– “Thanks for reminding me.”
– The goal was to preserve relationships and avoid humiliating someone who shared questionable content.
– This was framed as **self-implicating solidarity**, not correction from above.
### Example Use Case
– **Harzu Natalia** described how the stickers might be used in communication.
– Example:
– An aunt forwards an article with a dramatic or clickbait title.
– The user responds with a soft “source?” sticker.
– In a classmate group chat, a user sends a sticker that lightly signals “rumor” or “check this,” without escalating conflict.
– Natalia emphasized that the stickers are meant to slow down emotional escalation and information spread.
### Broader Ecosystem and Support Pages
– Natalia described Taiwan’s information environment as involving different actors, platforms, personalities, and emotional triggers.
– The group positioned the sticker as an intervention in the moment before escalation.
– They planned to support the sticker pack through:
– Instagram support pages.
– Other platforms.
– A landing page.
– Downloadable cards or partner materials.
– The sticker pack itself would avoid English wording and would be designed softly around Chinese/Taiwanese cultural references.
### Instructor Feedback
– The instructor praised the sticker idea as creative.
– He noted that the group should clarify the propaganda threat more strongly.
– He explained that Taiwanese people debating whether the United States will defend Taiwan is not automatically propaganda; it can be a legitimate political conversation.
– What would make it propaganda is if a specific actor uses that narrative for a political goal.
– The instructor advised the group to clarify:
– Who is producing or amplifying the abandonment narrative.
– Which actors are targeting vulnerable Taiwanese users.
– How to distinguish organic political doubt from coordinated propaganda.
—
## 7. Group 6 Presentation: Deconstructing China’s Narrative Framing of Taiwan Among Urban Chinese Youth
### Topic and Target Audience
– **Group 6** presented a project on **China’s narrative framing of Taiwan among urban Chinese youth**.
– The first presenter was not clearly identified in the transcript.
– The project focused on young urban Chinese citizens, especially:
– Ages **18–25**.
– University students.
– Young professionals.
– Residents of cities such as **Shanghai**.
– The group argued that this audience gets much of its information from platforms such as:
– Douyin.
– WeChat.
– Weibo.
### Propaganda Campaign and Narrative
– The group framed China’s Taiwan messaging not as a campaign based only on false facts, but as a process of **normalization**.
– The dominant narrative presented Taiwan as:
– An inalienable part of China.
– A political issue already settled by national identity.
– The group argued that the danger lies in how repetition makes this narrative feel like common sense rather than state messaging.
### Audience Vulnerability
– The first presenter identified several reasons why young urban Chinese users are vulnerable:
– They consume large amounts of fast-moving short-form content.
– This content leaves little time for reflection.
– The information environment is limited because major platforms are regulated by the state.
– The platforms show similar content repeatedly.
– Young people are still forming political identities.
– Because of these factors, propaganda may not feel like manipulation.
– Instead, it becomes part of everyday thinking.
### Digital Hygiene Toolkit
– A second presenter, not clearly identifiable, explained that the toolkit aims to help users identify the **emotional aspects of propaganda**.
– The toolkit is designed for Chinese youth who may be exposed to:
– Western media.
– Emotional content.
– State narratives.
– The toolkit does not rely primarily on traditional fact-checking.
– Instead, it offers quick tools users can apply in seconds, such as:
– Recognizing emotional triggers like anger or pride.
– Noticing repeated phrases.
– Identifying one-sided narratives.
– The presenter emphasized that the toolkit does not tell users what to think.
– It encourages independent thinking and awareness, which the group argued is important when dealing with sensitive political topics.
### Goal of the Toolkit
– The group stated that the toolkit aims to reduce propaganda influence indirectly by weakening:
– Echo chambers.
– Emotional reactions.
– Algorithmic reinforcement.
– At the same time, it aims to strengthen:
– Critical thinking.
– Digital resilience.
– Awareness of manipulation.
### Internalization Process
– Another presenter, also not clearly identifiable, explained how internalization happens in the Taiwan narrative.
– The process begins with **constant repetition** across:
– School textbooks.
– Official news.
– Douyin.
– Weibo.
– WeChat.
– Repeated messages include:
– “Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.”
– Over time, familiarity makes the message feel true.
– It stops feeling like a political position and becomes normalized.
– Eventually, people begin repeating the message themselves in:
– Comments.
– Conversations.
– Social media posts.
– At that stage, the narrative is no longer just state-driven; it becomes socially reinforced.
### “Critical Thinking as Civic Protection”
– The group used the phrase **“critical thinking is civic protection.”**
– They argued that in this context, critical thinking is not simply an academic skill.
– It protects independent thought in an environment shaped by:
– Repetition.
– Algorithms.
– Social pressure.
– The group clarified that their goal is not to tell users what to believe about Taiwan.
– Their goal is to help users recognize how their beliefs may have been shaped.
### Authenticity Effect
– The group described the **authenticity effect**:
– When propaganda is repeated by ordinary people, it begins to feel like authentic public opinion.
– They argued that young people are important because they do not just consume content; they amplify it.
– Once ordinary users repeat state narratives, those narratives become more believable.
### Trust-Building Strategy
– The group argued that the audience should trust the toolkit because:
– It does not tell them what to think.
– It offers tools for independent thinking.
– It transparently explains framing, emotion, repetition, and algorithms.
– It focuses on questions rather than instructions.
– It respects the audience’s intelligence.
### Website Demo
– The group showed a website for the toolkit.
– The transcript suggests the site included a checklist or interactive elements, though the group did not have enough time to explain each part in detail.
### Instructor Feedback: Backfire and Audience Fit
– The instructor asked whether the toolkit was the website itself; the group confirmed that it was.
– He then raised a major concern about the **backfire effect**.
– His first impression was that the website risked telling users that their identity or national belief was propaganda.
– He warned that someone leaning pro-China on Taiwan might immediately reject the site because it appears to attack their identity.
– The instructor noted that the website looked attractive and professional, but it seemed more like a class presentation than a tool designed for the target audience.
– He advised the group to revise the final submission by considering:
– How to avoid sounding like an outsider.
– How to avoid labeling the audience’s beliefs as propaganda too directly.
– How to reduce defensiveness.
– How to make the toolkit feel usable and trustworthy to the actual target audience rather than to the instructor/class.
—
## 8. Group 7 Presentation: “Love Beyond Borders” — Armenia-Azerbaijan Reconciliation Narrative
### Technical Difficulties and Presentation Start
– **Group 7** presented last.
– The presenter experienced screen-sharing and computer issues.
– The instructor suggested that the group present by voice while classmates followed the presentation link in the chat.
### Topic and Context
– Group 7’s project was titled **“Love Beyond Borders: Armenia and Azerbaijan Reconciliation Narrative.”**
– The project focused on long-standing Armenian-Azerbaijani hostility and anti-Armenian hate narratives.
– The presenter noted that anti-Armenian rhetoric continues even after a 2025 peace agreement, which she described as reached with help from Donald Trump.
– The group cited examples of Azerbaijani media portraying Armenians as genetically inclined toward treachery.
– The problem was framed as identity-based polarization rooted in historical trauma.
### Proposed Solution: Instagram Peace Aesthetic
– The group proposed reducing identity-based polarization through a media campaign on **Instagram**.
– The toolkit was an Instagram page designed to create a new “peace score” or reconciliation aesthetic.
– The campaign would publish high-quality, hyper-realistic AI-generated images of Armenian-Azerbaijani couples.
– The goal was to help people visualize friendship, intimacy, and reconciliation between the two groups.
### Design Choice: Romantic Heterosexual Couples
– The presenter explained that the images would show **heterosexual Armenian-Azerbaijani couples**.
– This was a deliberate choice because the reconciliation narrative itself is already socially sensitive.
– The group wanted to avoid adding another potentially polarizing issue into the campaign.
– The presenter emphasized that the social trauma is deep and many people cannot easily visualize even ordinary friendship between Armenians and Azerbaijanis.
– Romantic imagery was used to humanize the “other” through the universal language of love.
### Image Generation and Cultural Details
– The presenter described the difficulty of generating the images using AI.
– She warned classmates not to use Gemini AI Pro for this purpose and suggested using tools such as “Nano Banana” or other higher-quality image-generation platforms.
– The group tried to include culturally sensitive details, such as:
– Karabakh carpets/rugs.
– Armenian and Azerbaijani cultural aesthetics.
– Contextual visual details that make the images feel grounded.
### Backlash as Visibility
– The presenter acknowledged that some people may hate or reject the campaign.
– She suggested that backlash could still generate engagement because of how social media works.
– In other words, even negative comments could increase visibility.
### Theoretical Justification
– A second presenter, not clearly identifiable, explained the justification.
– The group chose this toolkit because people today often consume and internalize information through short, visual, emotional social media content.
– Platforms like Instagram prioritize:
– Visually engaging content.
– Emotional resonance.
– Shareability.
– The group argued that in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, much public messaging is not consumed through long explanations but through:
– Posts.
– Headlines.
– Images.
– Easily shared visual content.
– By showing individuals from both groups forming real connections, the campaign tries to disrupt the idea of the enemy as distant, alien, or fundamentally different.
– The group aimed to shift attention toward shared human experiences:
– Love.
– Trust.
– Relationships.
– Intimacy.
– The presenter argued that the toolkit is not just a method of presenting information; it is part of the argument itself.
– It replicates the emotional logic of social media but redirects it toward reconciliation.
### Instructor Feedback
– The instructor described the idea as the boldest project so far.
– He said it would likely generate the social media publicity the group wanted.
– However, he warned that many people on both sides may take offense and interpret the images as a personal insult.
– He noted that conflicts like this can generate intense backlash.
– The instructor observed that the project almost seems designed to trigger some degree of backfire effect in order to gain attention and comments.
– He said he was interested in seeing how the group handles the final version.
– He also commented on how realistic the AI-generated images were, aside from some small visual artifacts, and noted that the AI image-generation space is increasingly powerful and unsettling.
—
## 9. Closing Remarks and End of Course Reflection
– The instructor noted that the class had gone over time by around ten minutes.
– He thanked the students for their presentations and for their work throughout the semester.
– He described the course as experimental in two ways:
– The content.
– The delivery format.
– He acknowledged the challenge of teaching over Zoom to students spread across the world through the OSUN/GIA network.
– He expressed hope that students got something valuable out of the class.
– He mentioned that he would not be teaching OSUN classes the next semester but might do so again in the future.
– He encouraged AUCA students to take his classes and invited students to join future GIA/OSUN classes if they see him teaching again.
– Students thanked the professor before the session ended.
—
# Student Tracker
## Kendirbaeva Kanykei Oskonovna
– Presented for Group 8 on anti-Western propaganda in Iran, explaining the target audience, pre-bunking website, interactive elements, propaganda techniques, and planned social media distribution; also responded thoughtfully to a question about the backfire effect.
## Samatbekova Elaiym Samatbekovna
– Asked Group 8 a substantive question about whether showing propagandistic examples beside neutral reframings might unintentionally reinforce the original propaganda among already-aligned users.
## Turgunalieva Nazbike Baktybekovna
– Volunteered Group 2 to present and explained the group’s Instagram/Facebook carousel toolkit for countering anti-immigrant disinformation in the United States, including the platform choice, myth-vs-reality structure, action plan, and gentle audience approach.
## Yousufzai Khadija
– Likely contributed to Group 2’s theoretical justification section, discussing emotion-first persuasion, Haidt’s elephant/rider model, de-radicalization, non-judgmental framing, Lakoff’s reframing theory, shared identity, storytelling, echo chambers, and small behavioral actions.
– **Note:** The transcript rendered the name unclearly as “Hadicha/had each other,” but this most closely matches **Yousufzai Khadija** from the roster.
## Akylbekova Amina Batyrbekovna
– Volunteered Group 3 to present and introduced the group’s digital hygiene toolkit on the “Great Replacement” narrative in France, including the context, Éric Zemmour example, target audience, and rationale for 60-second Instagram Reel/TikTok videos.
## Zulumbekov Alikhan Dastanbekovich
– Introduced Group 5’s “Don’t Let Them Write Your Ending” project, explaining the U.S.-will-abandon-Taiwan narrative, the target persona Wei Lin, the TikTok-to-LINE misinformation flow, and why trusted private chats are central to the intervention.
## Harzu Natalia
– Presented part of Group 5’s sticker-pack deployment strategy, including examples of using soft “source?” or rumor-checking stickers in family and classmate LINE group chats, and described support pages and landing-page plans.
## Unknown/Uncertain Group 3 Presenter
– Explained Group 3’s video content structure, including hooks, real-life social media examples, breakdown of propaganda tactics, emotional triggers, selective evidence, “us vs. them” narratives, and practical tips such as pausing before sharing.
## Unknown/Uncertain Group 5 Presenter
– Presented the technical structure of the Group 5 LINE sticker pack, including tiered sticker categories for pauses, pattern recognition, taking a stand, and repair.
## Unknown/Uncertain Group 6 Presenters
– Presented Group 6’s project on Chinese state narrative framing of Taiwan among urban Chinese youth, explaining the target audience, propaganda normalization, emotional triggers, repetition, internalization, authenticity effect, and website-based digital hygiene toolkit.
## Unknown/Uncertain Group 7 Presenters
– Presented Group 7’s “Love Beyond Borders” Armenia-Azerbaijan reconciliation campaign, explaining the Instagram-based AI image strategy, romantic couple imagery, cultural visual details, rationale for using emotional/visual social media logic, and potential backlash.
—
# Actionable Items
## Urgent / Before Final Submission
### Group 8: Anti-Western Propaganda in Iran
– Clarify how the toolkit will avoid appearing to be a Western outsider correcting Iranian religious/political beliefs.
– Address the backfire effect directly in the final submission.
– Explain why the target audience trusts state narratives and what emotions sustain that trust.
– Strengthen the trust-building strategy for users who may already believe anti-Western narratives.
### Group 2: Anti-Immigrant Disinformation in the U.S.
– Specify how Instagram/Facebook content will actually persuade users to unfollow anger-producing accounts.
– Clarify how the toolkit will encourage real coworker conversations without sounding preachy.
– Apply the “cringe test” to make sure posts do not sound like outsiders lecturing economically insecure workers.
### Group 5: Taiwan/U.S. Abandonment Narrative
– Clarify what makes the U.S.-will-abandon-Taiwan narrative propaganda rather than ordinary political debate.
– Identify the actor(s) producing, amplifying, or benefiting from the narrative.
– Distinguish organic skepticism from coordinated influence operations in the final write-up.
### Group 6: Chinese Narrative Framing of Taiwan
– Revise the website/toolkit to reduce risk of immediate audience rejection.
– Avoid language that directly labels the audience’s identity or national belief as propaganda.
– Make the tool feel designed for the target audience rather than for a classroom presentation.
– Explain how the toolkit will build trust with users inside a sensitive political context.
### Group 7: Armenia-Azerbaijan Reconciliation Campaign
– Develop a plan for managing backlash, harassment, or hostile engagement.
– Clarify whether triggering controversy is an intentional visibility strategy and how the group will prevent it from undermining reconciliation goals.
– Ensure AI-generated images are culturally sensitive and do not accidentally offend either group.
—
## Medium Priority / Project Refinement
### Platform Strategy
– Groups using Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, LINE, or websites should explain how users will actually arrive at the toolkit.
– Groups should specify whether they are relying on organic reach, paid promotion, partnerships, influencers, hashtags, or cross-platform distribution.
### Audience Trust
– All groups should explicitly answer:
– Why would this audience trust this intervention?
– Who does the audience already trust?
– How does the toolkit avoid sounding like an outsider correction?
### Behavioral Actions
– Groups should distinguish between:
– Awareness goals.
– Attitude-change goals.
– Concrete behavioral goals.
– Desired actions such as sharing, pausing, unfollowing, discussing, or checking sources should be tied to specific design features.
—
## Lower Priority / General Course Wrap-Up
### Final Course Reflection
– Instructor may want to note that this was the final session and included closing remarks thanking students for participation.
– Instructor may want to keep record that students were invited to take future AUCA or OSUN/GIA courses if available.
### Timing
– Presentations ran over the planned time, and the class ended approximately ten minutes late.
– For future versions of this activity, stricter timing or fewer presentations per session may help preserve time for questions.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Finalize and Submit Your Digital Hygiene / Propaganda-Resistance Toolkit
You will complete the final version of your group toolkit project based on the draft presentation you gave in class and the feedback discussed during the lesson. Your final submission should show how your toolkit responds to a specific propaganda, disinformation, or manipulative communication narrative; why your chosen audience is vulnerable to that narrative; how your toolkit will reach that audience; and why your strategy is likely to work. The purpose of this assignment is to move from a draft concept or prototype into a polished, audience-aware intervention that applies the course concepts on framing, emotional manipulation, echo chambers, identity, algorithmic amplification, prebunking/rebunking, backfire effects, and digital hygiene.
Instructions:
1. **Work with your assigned group.**
Continue working in the same group that presented during class. Your final submission should represent a completed version of the toolkit idea you presented, not an entirely unrelated new project.
2. **Clearly identify the propaganda or manipulative narrative you are addressing.**
In your final project, explain the specific narrative your toolkit is designed to counter. For example, groups in class focused on narratives such as:
– Anti-Western propaganda in Iran;
– Anti-immigrant disinformation in the United States;
– The “Great Replacement” narrative in France;
– The idea that the United States will abandon Taiwan;
– Chinese state narratives about Taiwan;
– Anti-Armenian / anti-Azerbaijani identity-based hate and reconciliation narratives.
Be precise: do not simply say “propaganda about immigration” or “propaganda about Taiwan.” Explain the actual claim, frame, or emotional message being repeated.
3. **Explain who is producing or benefiting from the propaganda.**
Make sure your final project identifies the actor, institution, media ecosystem, political movement, or strategic interest behind the narrative. As discussed during the feedback to Group 5, a political opinion or debate is not automatically propaganda. It becomes propaganda when it is being strategically promoted by an actor for a political, ideological, or social goal.
In your final submission, answer questions such as:
– Who is spreading or amplifying this narrative?
– What political, social, or ideological goal does the narrative serve?
– Why does the narrative matter in the real-world context you selected?
4. **Define your target audience in detail.**
Identify the specific audience your toolkit is meant to reach. Include relevant demographic, social, political, emotional, and media-consumption characteristics. Do not define the audience too broadly unless your strategy is designed for a broad public.
Your audience description should answer:
– Who are they?
– What age range, location, community, or social group do they belong to?
– What platforms do they use?
– What kinds of content are they exposed to?
– What emotions, concerns, or insecurities make them vulnerable to the narrative?
5. **Explain why this audience is vulnerable to the narrative.**
Go beyond saying that the audience “uses social media.” Explain the mechanism of vulnerability. Draw on concepts from the course, such as:
– Emotional framing;
– Fear, anger, humiliation, resentment, pride, or insecurity;
– Repetition and familiarity effects;
– Echo chambers and algorithmic reinforcement;
– In-group / out-group identity;
– Social trust among friends, family, coworkers, or group chats;
– Low institutional trust;
– Political identity formation;
– Economic insecurity;
– Historical trauma or collective memory.
6. **Present the final version of your toolkit.**
Your final project should include the actual toolkit or a polished prototype of it. Depending on your group’s project, this may be:
– A website;
– An Instagram campaign;
– TikTok / Instagram Reel scripts or videos;
– A carousel post series;
– A sticker pack;
– A landing page;
– A digital checklist;
– An interactive quiz;
– A social media account;
– Another digital hygiene intervention.
Make sure the toolkit is not only described abstractly. The final submission should allow the audience to see, read, click through, or otherwise understand what the user would actually experience.
7. **Design the toolkit for your target audience, not only for the class.**
As discussed during the feedback to Group 6, your toolkit should feel like something your target audience would realistically encounter and use. Avoid making the final product look only like a class presentation about propaganda.
Ask yourselves:
– Would our target audience actually click on this?
– Would they immediately feel judged or attacked?
– Does the language sound natural for this audience?
– Does the design fit the platform where they normally consume information?
– Does the toolkit invite reflection, or does it simply tell people that they are wrong?
8. **Address the backfire effect.**
Several groups received feedback about the risk of triggering defensiveness or rejection. In your final submission, explain how your toolkit avoids making the audience feel accused, humiliated, or attacked.
Consider:
– Using non-judgmental language;
– Asking questions instead of making direct accusations;
– Acknowledging the audience’s real concerns before reframing the issue;
– Avoiding the impression that you are an outsider preaching to them;
– Avoiding direct “this is propaganda and you are wrong” messaging when that would alienate the audience;
– Providing tools for independent thinking rather than simply replacing one narrative with another.
9. **Explain how you will build trust with your audience.**
As discussed especially in the feedback to Group 8, if your target audience already trusts the original propaganda source, they may reject your message unless they have a reason to trust you.
Your final project should explain:
– Why would the audience listen to this toolkit?
– What tone, identity, source, or format makes the toolkit credible?
– Are you speaking as an outsider, an insider, a peer, a neutral guide, or something else?
– How do you avoid sounding like the exact enemy or threat described by the propaganda narrative?
10. **Clarify the action you want users to take.**
Your toolkit should not only inform people; it should guide them toward realistic digital hygiene behavior. Be specific about the action you want users to take after encountering your toolkit.
Possible actions include:
– Pausing before sharing;
– Checking the source;
– Recognizing emotional manipulation;
– Comparing a propaganda frame with a neutral frame;
– Unfollowing or muting accounts that repeatedly trigger anger;
– Discussing the issue with coworkers, friends, or family;
– Using a sticker or phrase to slow down a group chat conversation;
– Sharing the toolkit with others;
– Completing a short quiz or checklist;
– Following a campaign page for future content.
11. **Make your desired actions realistic.**
As discussed in the feedback to Group 2, it is not enough to list ideal actions such as “unfollow harmful accounts” or “talk to coworkers.” You need to explain how your content will actually encourage users to do those things.
In your final submission, explain:
– Where in the toolkit the call to action appears;
– How the wording avoids sounding accusatory;
– Why the action is small enough for users to realistically perform;
– How the action fits the platform and audience behavior;
– How the action contributes to weakening the propaganda narrative.
12. **Use course concepts to justify your strategy.**
Your final submission should include a clear justification section explaining why your toolkit is designed the way it is. Connect your design choices to concepts from the course. For example, you may discuss:
– Jonathan Haidt’s point about emotion coming before reasoning;
– Framing and reframing;
– In-group / out-group identity;
– Echo chambers and algorithmic amplification;
– Prebunking or rebunking;
– The backfire effect;
– Storytelling and emotional persuasion;
– Repetition and normalization;
– Social trust and peer-to-peer communication;
– Digital hygiene as a practical skill;
– The role of platform affordances such as Instagram Reels, TikTok videos, LINE stickers, or group chats.
13. **Revise your project using the specific feedback your group received in class.**
Use the following group-specific feedback as a revision checklist:
**Group 8 — Anti-Western propaganda in Iran**
– Explain more clearly why the target audience trusts state narratives.
– Identify the emotions behind that trust, such as faith, dignity, fear, national pride, or suspicion of Western influence.
– Explain how your website establishes trust so that users do not immediately see it as a Western outsider correction.
– Be careful with side-by-side propaganda/correction formats, because users may feel more aligned with the propaganda statement if it is presented too strongly.
– Clarify how your empathetic and gentle language will reduce resistance or backfire.
**Group 2 — Anti-immigrant disinformation in the United States**
– Keep the strong focus on economic insecurity, fear of job loss, and resentment, but make sure your toolkit does not shame the audience.
– Clarify how your Instagram/Facebook carousel will move users from emotional recognition to reframing.
– Explain how you will realistically encourage users to unfollow or mute harmful accounts.
– Explain how you will encourage real conversations with coworkers without sounding preachy or unrealistic.
– Use the “cringe test”: if the post feels like an outsider lecturing the audience, revise the tone.
**Group 3 — Great Replacement narrative in France**
– Continue developing the short-video strategy for Instagram Reels or TikTok.
– Make sure each video has a clear structure: hook, example, breakdown of manipulation technique, and practical digital hygiene tip.
– Maintain the non-judgmental tone.
– Make the videos skill-building rather than belief-policing: teach viewers how to recognize emotional framing, selective evidence, and “us versus them” narratives.
**Group 5 — “The United States will abandon Taiwan” narrative**
– Clarify what makes the narrative propaganda rather than simply a legitimate political debate.
– Identify the actor or actors strategically promoting the abandonment narrative.
– Explain how the LINE sticker pack intervenes in everyday trusted communication spaces.
– Show how each sticker creates friction, pause, or source-checking without accusing the sender.
– Make clear why culturally familiar idioms, soft visual design, and low-conflict responses are appropriate for your target audience.
**Group 6 — Chinese narratives about Taiwan**
– Rework the toolkit so that it feels directed toward your target audience, not only toward the professor or the class.
– Avoid opening in a way that immediately tells users their identity is propaganda.
– Explain how you will avoid the backfire effect among users who may feel that their national identity is being attacked.
– Focus on helping users recognize repetition, emotional triggers, and algorithmic reinforcement without directly insulting their beliefs.
– Make sure the website/toolkit uses language that invites self-reflection rather than defensiveness.
**Group 7 — Armenia/Azerbaijan reconciliation narrative**
– Continue developing the Instagram-based visual campaign, but address the likelihood of backlash.
– Explain how the project will survive hostile comments, offense, or accusations from both sides.
– Clarify whether the campaign intentionally uses controversy to generate visibility, and if so, how you will manage the risks.
– Make sure the AI-generated images are culturally sensitive and do not accidentally reinforce stereotypes or produce offensive inaccuracies.
– Explain why love, intimacy, shared humanity, or reconciliation imagery is an appropriate counter-frame for identity-based hostility.
14. **Polish the language and design of your toolkit.**
Before submitting, revise your written text, captions, website copy, video scripts, stickers, or images so that they are clear, professional, and suitable for your intended audience.
Check for:
– Grammar and spelling;
– Consistency of tone;
– Clear visual hierarchy;
– Accessibility, such as subtitles or readable captions where relevant;
– Platform-appropriate formatting;
– Avoidance of overly academic language if your audience is the general public;
– Avoidance of inflammatory wording unless you have a clear strategic reason for using it.
15. **Include a short explanation of how users will encounter the toolkit.**
Explain your distribution plan. For example:
– Will users find it through Instagram posts?
– Will it be promoted through TikTok or Reels?
– Will it circulate in LINE group chats?
– Will there be a link in a bio?
– Will it be shared by partner organizations?
– Will there be a landing page?
– Will the content be reposted on Facebook, YouTube, X, or another platform?
Make sure the distribution strategy matches your target audience’s actual media habits.
16. **Include the final product or links to the final product.**
If your toolkit is digital, include working links whenever possible. If some components are prototypes, include screenshots, mockups, scripts, or visual examples.
For example:
– Website link;
– Instagram account link;
– Carousel screenshots;
– Reel/TikTok scripts or video files;
– Sticker pack images;
– Landing page draft;
– Interactive quiz mockup;
– Social media captions;
– Example user interaction.
17. **Explain how the toolkit would be evaluated.**
Include a brief explanation of how you would know whether the toolkit is working. You do not need to run a full evaluation, but you should identify possible indicators of success.
These may include:
– Shares, saves, comments, or follows;
– Users completing a quiz;
– Users clicking a source-checking link;
– Users using a sticker in a group chat;
– Users reporting that they paused before sharing;
– Lower emotional escalation in comment threads;
– Qualitative feedback from target users;
– Evidence that users understand the manipulation technique being addressed.
18. **Prepare the final submission as a coherent project package.**
Your final submission should include both the toolkit itself and a written explanation of the strategy behind it. Organize the submission clearly, using headings such as:
– Narrative / propaganda problem;
– Target audience;
– Audience vulnerability;
– Toolkit description;
– Platform and distribution plan;
– Intended user actions;
– Theoretical justification;
– Backfire / trust considerations;
– Final product links or materials;
– Evaluation plan.
19. **Make sure the final version reflects the course goal.**
The goal is not simply to “correct misinformation.” Your toolkit should help people become more resilient in digital environments where propaganda often works through emotion, repetition, identity, social trust, and platform algorithms. Your final project should show how your audience can recognize manipulation and practice better digital hygiene in a realistic everyday setting.
20. **Submit the completed final version of your group toolkit project.**
Submit your polished final toolkit and written explanation by the assigned deadline. Make sure all group members’ names are included and that any links are accessible.