Illustrative examples of communication hijacking
| Communication hijacking factors | HybridCOE launch takeover | The People’s 5 tips for tackling COVID | Let’s save the children of Finland |
|---|---|---|---|
| Involuntary | Declined by the Prime Minister’s Office, “Eurooppalainen hybridiosaamiskeskus” was attempted: a fake center with a similar name was established “When the fake association created its Twitter account, [a person representing Finnish authorities] participated in the discussion on Twitter and reminded the audience that this is not the official center’s account.” (Interviewee 2) | Without consulting the authorities, fake messages were sent directly to citizens, and social media influencers were encouraged to participate “Authorities’ were intentionally misinterpreted or used in a very purposefully manipulative way.” (Interviewee 2) | Without consulting the NGO, riding on the recognition and reputation of the original association, a similar name was utilized “Well, after the conversation on the name started in public, they ended up changing it.” (Interviewee 2) |
| Co-opting | The competing association mimicked the name and the visual identity of the official center on Twitter “When the Hybrid CoE was established, a visually identical website was created, as well as a Twitter account.” (Interviewee 11) | Mimicking the original campaign’s design and wording “It mimicked the visual design of the appearance of the Finnish Institute of Health and Welfare.” (Interviewee 2) | The name of the campaign, Pelastetaan lapset, was very close to the name of the well-known organization Pelastakaa lapset “They clearly aimed to ride on the name of a traditional organization.” (Interviewee 2) |
| Against the original purpose | The fake association shared pro-Kremlin content on Twitter, portraying Russia as a friend “When there was the official signing event for the Hybrid CoE, this fake association organized a competing event. They had a Kremlin-friendly speaker at their event.” (Interviewee 2) | The campaign questioned the original campaign’s guidelines and shared instructions that directly contradict them “Then came this ‘People’s 5 tips’ campaign, where the original message was turned 180°.” (Interviewee 2) | The messages of the campaign, including disinformation and misleading content, were mistaken for those from the account of the original association. “The website was also really close to ‘Save the Children,’ so it got confusing. -- And they were critical of vaccines.” (Interviewee 2) |
| Communication hijacking factors | HybridCOE launch takeover | The People’s 5 tips for tackling COVID | Let’s save the children of Finland |
|---|---|---|---|
| Involuntary | Declined by the Prime Minister’s Office, | Without consulting the authorities, fake messages were sent directly to citizens, and social media influencers were encouraged to participate | Without consulting the NGO, riding on the recognition and reputation of the original association, a similar name was utilized |
| Co-opting | The competing association mimicked the name and the visual identity of the official center on Twitter | Mimicking the original campaign’s design and wording | The name of the campaign, |
| Against the original purpose | The fake association shared pro-Kremlin content on Twitter, portraying Russia as a friend | The campaign questioned the original campaign’s guidelines and shared instructions that directly contradict them | The messages of the campaign, including disinformation and misleading content, were mistaken for those from the account of the original association. |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.