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
Even if his actions meant more people died?
Hopefully you aren't ever put into such a situation where a split second choice means no matter which you pick someone says you were wrong. He should be praised for acting, period, and the discussion should then move to the incident itself. Not some, "well, actualllllyyy..."
Sure sure, he's a hero.
But it's a social media with mostly shitposts, so why not say stuff out loud if for nothing else than to sort these thoughts that are kind of presenting themselves. And they are.
I mean, it would be a way cooler story of the guy went all Rambo and dispatched both of them instead of just caused a short pause for one of them.
If you mean try and prepare all the readers for when they get into such a situation, that's really stretching the purpose. It's fine to question what you would have done in the same situation, it's absolutely something everyone is thinking when they read it. But don't critique the person who was there, they did what they did, regardless of the "best" options after days of reflection.
If this was a trolley problem, he only saw a trolley screaming down the track and a lever. How do you make a "good" decision in seconds when you don't even know the results later? You see some guy with a gun, you either try to protect yourself or you see a brief opportunity to stop him. When you get the gun away, there's another mystery trolley with all sorts of variables. He must be a peaceful person, as he chose the least aggressive choice. Is that bad?
I'm just saying there's a fine line on a discussion board between speculation and judging. The real discussion should be why regular people are getting caught in such situations in the modern era. We should be better than this. But that's a far broader talk than whether or not he should should have shot the guy.
I'm approaching this from another angle.
Like, we all know what happened was bad and there is 300 news networks praising this guy for tackling the shooter and everybody is saying thoughts and prayers and ,...
That's all there. It's been said many times and it will be said many more times by smarter more eloquent people than myself and anyone else that ever installed Lemmy.
Nothing anyone writes here will be read by more than a handful of people and it is completely and utterly inconsequential on an inconsequential social media platform.
So why not go for something a bit more original and have a "drunk" philosophical debate about a "trolley problem" like this without some self-righteous outrage at a person for starting it.
No one has stopped you from making your points. We just disagree on them. There's your discussion. The caveat of free expression means others can tell you you're wrong, or even that you shouldn't be saying such things. Your best defense is to show why they're wrong. I'll leave it to everyone who reads this thread to determine if that goal has been met.
I'm not saying they are wrong. Probably they are right, but way not iron out the edges.
But if insults stay coming, then maybe there is something more to it. It's like a litmus test.
Even the harshest replies here have been towards your viewpoint and opinion, not you. If you're taking discussion and debate as an insult, that is certainly a litmus test.
I'm not at all, but Lemmy often isn't very friendly.
Welcome to the internet? Not even the internet, as such heated discussions have been around since the days of Usenet and BBSes, where the anonymity of posting thoughts and rebuttals allowed people to be less guarded in what and how they said things to each other. But so what? If your points are grounded in evidence and logic, why do you care if people get angry in their response?
I'm not complaining.
Yes. Better to have one crazy guy shooting than one crazy guy and one untrained guy shooting.
Your equation doesn't work. It's more like:
It's better to have a crazy guys shooting at everyone than one untrained guy shooting at the unarmed crazy guy...?
I think you will agree that it's better to have three untrained guy shooting at the unarmed crazy guy.
But it's not really about shooting. The armed person has incredible power over the unarmed one. They don't need to shoot, they have other options.
Not really, an untrained shooter is almost as much a danger to the very people they are trying to protect if they do not know how to properly control the weapon.
I beg to differ. I don't think it could have gotten any worse than the shooter going back to their stack of weapons and continuing the murder spree.
Can you describe your worst scenario?
The untrained shooter loses control on their weapon and fires into the crowd thus doubling the amount of damage done. The weapon fails to function properly and in his attempts to clear the stoppage the untrained shooter ends up misfiring into the crowd or he injures himself. Under stress, the untrained shooter has no idea what to do and continues to fire.
There was no crowd there.
Well then that's perfectly alright then. I will defer to your obvious extensive expertise in firearms.
I appreciate your concern for handling firearms, but the are situations when taking a risk is better than not doing anything.