Basic history classes should have made it clear that trying to censor sarcasm not only doesn't work, but is counter-productive. All regimes have tried various things to prevent them, but they just gave their opponents even more topics to make fun of. That dates back to drawings mocking the king being circulated in underground newspapers, to using "Non-Playable-Characters" online on Twitter.

The paper doesn't seem to recommend simply censoring though. It proposes sensible means of engagement (and disengagement) on page 12 and 13.

I meant putting money into researching how does internet, internet communities, memes, social medias are used to manipulate, radicalize, create misinformation yada yada.

Literally nobody is trying to, or has in any way suggested, "censoring sarcasm".

This is a document that describes, accurately, how the far right uses humour. That is a useful thing to document and be aware of when trying to combat radicalisation.

This is the first step: first you put in every policy maker head the idea that there is a problem and that they need to do something about it, then they find "solutions"...

Think about how "internet" and "social networks" become "evil" in policy maker heads.

Now, everything that is happening is the fault of internet. So, internet has to be censored.

It is bullshit, because it is ghost chasing and witch hunting.

As said in other comments, the guys are trying to create "a case" from simple and innocent trolling.

We have seen that a lot before:

- Persons become violent because they played violent video games in their childhood: The proof? Some mass murders played video games.

- Messengers/chat are the root cause of terrorism: the proof? Some terrorists used SMS and email to discuss.

> As said in other comments, the guys are trying to create "a case" from simple and innocent trolling

Are you willfully or unwilfully ignorant? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

* "innocent" trolling like 5G/Covid/magical cures conspiracy theories that literally cost lives ?

* "innocent" trolling like what resulted in people getting together to try and overturn the latest US presidential elections ?

* "innocent" trolling like what helped drive the point for Brexit ?

It's hard to draw a line between a shithead teenager memeing and an astroturfing or at least organised campaign that brings together terrible things.

Is that innocent trolling as well: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/17/covid-misinfor... ?

You confuse the causes and the consequences.

And this is very very dangerous for us, because you are not the only one like that, but a lot of policy maker push for these fake arguments as it is very convenient for them to support their policies.

There was an excellent article in HN that explains why you are wrong:

https://www.cigionline.org/articles/disinformation-its-histo...

(Discussion link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27923933 )

No, we really don't. You do.

You're falling for the pretext that it's all just a joke. And it is, for a while. And then it's not any more.