On social platforms, the behavior of guiding the public to misperceptions about a certain social event through information manipulation may involve a variety of strategies. These operations usually take advantage of human weaknesses, technical tools, and platform algorithm vulnerabilities. The following are some common methods and potential effects： ###1. Control of the information production stage 1. **Forged source technology** -Deepfake: Use AI to generate fake audio and video to imitate scenes of authoritative figures speaking (such as faking videos of government officials speaking). -Grafted editing: Splicing together clips of events in different time and space to create false associations (such as grafting disaster relief material transportation footage into military operations). 2. **Semantic pollution strategy** -Keyword pollution: Insert a lot of irrelevant content under the hot event tags (such as flooding social movement topics with celebrity gossip). -Multi-modal misleading: misplaced graphic and text matching (such as labeling pictures of demonstrations in other countries as domestic events). ###2. Control of the information dissemination stage 1. **Algorithm hijacking technology** -Collaborative brush volume: Use the zombie account matrix to focus on likes/retweets in a short period of time, triggering the recommendation of the platform's popularity algorithm. -Cross-platform pollution: create topics on Weibo→ Spread screenshots on WeChat→ A multi-platform joint action battle for the second creation of Douyin. 2. **Cognitive warfare framework construction** -Preset analogy: forcibly associate events with historical sensitive points (such as comparing epidemic prevention policies to Nazi control). -Emotional implantation: embedding hidden value judgments in factual statements (such as using "massacre" to refer to conventional law enforcement). ###3. Manipulation in the information interpretation stage 1. **Group polarization engineering** -Human-set breeding: long-term operation of "rational and neutral" accounts to gain trust and implement key misdiagnosis. -Pseudo-dialectics: first create extreme opposing views, and then introduce a preset "middle ground". 2. **Meta-narrative deconstruction** -Trust chain pollution: systematically question the basis of the credibility of all official sources of information. -Professional charm removal: use civil science theory to package anti-intellectual content and dispel the right of experts to speak. ###4. Risks of integration of new technologies 1. **Generative AI abuse** -GPT tools mass produce rumor texts in localized dialects to avoid keyword filtering. - The diffusion model generates a large number of stylized fake on-site pictures, breaking through traditional anti-counterfeiting techniques. 2. **Meta-universe scene manipulation** -VR virtual parade: Fake the illusion of an online gathering of 10,000 people to stimulate the psychology of the crowd. -Digital identity theft: clone the user's social relationship chain to implement precise dissemination. ### Defense mechanism suggestion 1. **Technical level** -Develop a cross-modal content traceability verification system (such as BLOCKCHAIN deposit certificate + digital watermark) -Establish a dynamic rumor feature library to train AI to recognize new semantic pollution patterns 2. **Cognitive level** -Promote visual literacy education and cultivate multi-modal information criticism skills -Establish an "information vaccination" mechanism to expose common manipulation techniques in advance These information manipulation methods often form a combination of attacks, which gradually disintegrate the public's factual judgment benchmark by creating a "half-true and half-false" content ecosystem. Defense requires a multi-dimensional synergy of technological governance, legal regulation, and civic literacy improvement. Especially in the context of the popularization of generative AI, information warfare has entered a new stage of "ultra-real" confrontation.