I have to say this was a hard one for the team -- balancing the need for citizens and journalists to call attention to misconduct and risk (so that it can be addressed proactively) with the need to make sure you aren't amplifying what are essentially vote-suppressing threats. https://twitter.com/katestarbird/status/1315784832559898624

Ultimately it does not recommend a strict course of action -- the calculus for these issues is always going to be specific to audience concerns and evolving.

But by understanding the basics of this particular active measures technique, even at this high level, I would argue that we could all make marginally better decisions around this stuff.

I'll also add there's going to be a even more intense version of this on election day where there will be a flood of reports -- some true, some false -- that zip around Twitter and Facebook, some with video evidence.

And some may be important documentation of, well, actual crimes. But others may have the intended/unintended effect of convincing people miles or even states away from such actions that going to the polls is too risky.

I'm hoping to write an online media literacy post on this subject for @writingproject this week, really asking people to think through how they frame such events, especially with material not fully verified put out while polls are still open.

One idea -- when sharing images of election related misconduct, *please* keep the location of the event front & center. This makes it easier to verify, brings it to attention of people more likely to make a difference, and (maybe?) reduces potential amplification side effects?

(And as always, except in rare circumstances, make sure you know at least the location and date any media you share was initially created/captured. Provenance, not your own sense of what is true, is almost always a better guide.)