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
Some people are just shuffling cards. They can adopt the language of tribal force, or republican democracy, or leftist dialectics - or reasoned debate. Ultimately they treat reality as a team sport. Their stated ideals are ad-hoc pretense. All that has ever mattered is ingroup loyalty.
And they think that's all you're doing. They think that's all there is.
YES well said. I was also fascinated by Qanon for similar reasons. I just can't wrap my head around that way of seeing the world.
Conservatives say unreasonable things because reasoning is not what they do. Rationality isn't a property, it's a behavior. These people can pattern-match and build hypotheses, but what they're doing with that ability is making shit up to perform ingroup loyalty. We keep asking each other what they really believe. But conservatives do not believe things - they believe people.
Like obviously it's all just a word game to keep your guys at their rightful positions in the immutable strict hierarchy which decides what's real. Claims have no objective means for evaluation because that is not what claims are for. They can only be accepted or rejected based on interpersonal trust, and calling someone incorrect means challenging their position.
Explaining why that's wrong becomes another card in their deck. They'll play it against you when it sounds relevant, and if you tell them that doesn't make sense, they'll get mad you're not playing fair. This worldview is not fragile. It is not challenged by contrary evidence, because evidence isn't real. To these people, there is only "who says." If the right person moves a Falling Rocks sign, the rocks will fall somewhere else.
They're not p-zombies. They're not morons, either. They're adherents to a simpler, more ingrained, and more satisfying way of experiencing reality. They're not faking it, and they're not about to be ousted from it by highlighting contradictions they do not view as relevant. This is just another internally-consistent way to explain what they see in the world.
Which is so much worse.
I think the best way to dismantle the arguments/worldviews like this is to stick to the simplicity of good nature and to openly challenge them for having no heart, no love, and if they accept those descriptions of themselves, stop talking to them and broadcast their self admitted behavior for fencesitters.
They have to fall back on a hatred of the weak, it is core to their ranking of who is worthy of empathy and who is not. Without it these people have no compass.
This is never truly a majority popular way of being for human beings. Let your conversation be witnessed by a crowd of neutral people and you win.
Same with the libs.