CISA Rumor Control

I can envision someone skimming through the headings and reading the first thing they see in each section, thinking that it's the correct information.

A convincing design is more important to propaganda while a convincing reasoning is more important to fact checking.

Of course a site may serve as both, propaganda for the ones unable to reason and carefully crafted argument for the interested.

If you're going to dismiss all information out of government agencies simply on the basis that they're authorities and you don't like what they have to say, you should probably buy a gun and move into the woods

> Rumor: If a social media account claims an identity, the account must be run by that person or organization.

I could claim to be the King of France himself right here, right now, but that wouldn't make it so.

As Buster (the rabbit) said: Someone would do that? Just go on the Internet and lie?

As another example, the claim that a website outage could be caused by something other than hacking — is trivial to prove by thinking about it. High load — particularly on election night, likely the busiest night for an election site — can cause the site to go down.

Further, most of them are backed by citations, many to not CISA. Even if you think "it's a giant federal conspiracy" many of the claims are still trivially fact checked by punching them into Google, where non-federal and non-governmental sources further back them up. (E.g., that voter rolls are generally public can be fact-checked that way.)