Fediverse vs Disinformation
Pointing out, debunking, and spreading awareness about state- and company-sponsored astroturfing on Lemmy and elsewhere. This includes social media manipulation, propaganda, and disinformation campaigns, among others.
Propaganda and disinformation are a big problem on the internet, and the Fediverse is no exception.
What's the difference between misinformation and disinformation? The inadvertent spread of false information is misinformation. Disinformation is the intentional spread of falsehoods.
By equipping yourself with knowledge of current disinformation campaigns by state actors, corporations and their cheerleaders, you will be better able to identify, report and (hopefully) remove content matching known disinformation campaigns.
Community rules
Same as instance rules, plus:
- No disinformation
- Posts must be relevant to the topic of astroturfing, propaganda and/or disinformation
Related websites
- EU vs Disinfo
- FactCheck.org
- PolitiFact
- Snopes
- Media Bias / Fact Check
- PEN America
- Media Matters
- FAIR
Matrix chat links
view the rest of the comments
We watched the video of him pointing the gun at the gun man and debated about the fact that he could have just shot the guy and the public would have praised him for it.
But the debate was that .... what would YOU have done? Most of us agreed that we would not have wanted the guilt of killing someone on our conscious, even if it were justified.
So the thing we settled on was ..... he should have shot him in the leg or the foot.
Leg shots aren't any "better," there's arteries in there. Foot shots are better for not killing the guy, but they're also better for missing and having a ricochet kill an innocent bystander. And both are still AWDW at best, attempted/successful murder at worst.
If you're going to shoot (legally) it's because you or someone else's life is in immanent danger to the degree that if you don't shoot the guy someone else will die or have permanent injury as a result of his actions, aiming for his feet can be argued by prosecutors as you "knowing" your life itself wasn't in immediate danger, people have been convicted on that before. More importantly, the reason you're trained to shoot for center mass is A) Aim small miss small, you're more likely to actually hit center mass than a tiny moving foot and B) shots that hit center mass (with the appropriate ammo that you should be carrying for exactly this reason) are more likely to stay inside the attacker instead of over penetrating and endangering bystanders.
This situation would fall under the "protecting others" part, even having disarmed him, and would likely be covered by continuance of action. The shot would be legal.*
In any US state without a Duty to Retreat™, that does have Stand Your Ground®. Lord knows for AUS, idk their self defense laws at all.
Or he thought he was gonna face serious time if he shot the guy
He didn't need to shoot him. He had a gun, which is a rather big leverage. He could threaten or in other way force him to stay there. There are other options.