this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
233 points (94.6% liked)

Fediverse vs Disinformation

541 readers
95 users here now

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:

  1. No disinformation
  2. Posts must be relevant to the topic of astroturfing, propaganda and/or disinformation

Related websites


Matrix chat links

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
 

A great example of corporate/state propaganda. Go fuck yourself Bret.

all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The same New York Times that downplayed Germany's treatment of their Jewish population in 1939. FROM THEIR CORRESPONDENT IN BERLIN!

They've always been the benign face of evil. Palatable enough to appear left, but just parroting the same distractions and obfuscations.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

Was that also duranty?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 5 days ago
[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Wait, there are people who don't realize all the major newspapers are owned by billionaires and thus have severe capital and corporate biases independent of their policial leaning?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

But NYT is"publicly" owned!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

So is the federal government, that's why it's okay when we're mistreated and oppressed - the majority of public voted for it. Excuse me, the "majority of the public" voted for it.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Opinion columnist who they saw fit to print. Do you see any opinions there that are examining why the murder has been so widely celebrated, rather than manufactured consent crap like this?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

No one ever cares here. The NYT does this explicitly to avoid being an echo chamber but, well, people love echo chambers.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You mean "launder shit they couldn't in a million years justify publishing otherwise"?

This was also an editorial: https://workingclasshistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/02.03-irrefutable-Washington-Post.jpg

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm confused, this is an article from the Washington Post?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You are confused: it's an editorial from the Washington Post.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Ok, but isn't the OP about the NYT?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The root comment of this chain, to which you responded to, is, in it's entirety:

opinion columnist

It does not specify a paper. Nor is the practice of employing columnists for opinion laundering limited to the NYT.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Sure, but the context of the post is NYT. Feel free to start your own thread about the WP I guess?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

No, the context is opinion columns. Or are you making the claim that NYT, specifically, does not engage in the practice, unlike WaPo?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

No I'm making that claim that the title to this post has the world's New York Times in the title and you're deciding you want to have a different conversation, which is fine, but why do you gotta hijack someone else's thread to do it? Make your own post and do it there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

No. Once again, the root post of this chain is, in it's entirety ">opinion columnist". Your response is that NYT does this to prevent echo chambers. My response is to object, not to the NYT part, but to the to prevent echo chambers part.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You're choosing to ignore that the branch post you're referring to is responding to the root post about the New York Times.

Here's some facts, about the NYT (from when they were called op-ed pieces, it was changed in 2021):

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/insider/opinion-op-ed-explainer.html

The Opinion section operates editorially independently from the rest of the newspaper. It is the section’s unique mission both to be the voice of The Times, and to challenge it. The Op-Ed pages were born, in part, because of the closing of New York’s top conservative newspaper, The New York Herald Tribune. They were created to be opposite the editorial pages — and not just physically.

The funny part is that I think pretty much everyone hates them, and that's kind of the point. If you never read anything outside of your echo chamber, you'll never know how absolutely ridiculous some of these very widely believed opinions are.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yes, yes I am choosing to ignore it, because it's irrelevant to the point I'm making, because the point I'm making is that they're not there to break up the echo chamber, they're the second wall of it, and unless you make a special case for the NYT, they are neither exempt not unique about it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Well I'm glad you're back on track talking about the subject at hand. Took you a while but you got there. Maybe don't take so many detours next time.

Regarding the subject at hand, I guess you're entitled to your own opinion then too, aren't you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

...I'm sorry, I think you meant to post this in reply to a different post.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Are you sure you're not just confused again?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

I'm just happy you agreed to stick to the topic.

[–] AlecSadler 14 points 5 days ago

Just cancelled my $1/wk subscription to NYT and straight up filled out all the surveys and feedback bits to say Bret Stephens sucks.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 days ago

I can’t read Bret Stephens’ bullshit. I try, but it’s always nauseating.

[–] southsamurai 12 points 5 days ago

My anus is not the source of a horrible pile of feces, Bret Stephens is

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago

New York nazi Times.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Many people thought the establishment was on their side. Now they realize they couldn't give a shit about them.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Nah man, please stop, let's do some culture wars... You wouldn't want to kick of a class war?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The media & establishment has been waging class warfare for as long as I can remember. Usually they have everyone fighting amongst themselves. They're scared that people are seeing the real perpetrators for once.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Dead CEO won't reform the industry. Gonna take a ton of public pressure for that.

And they are already chipping away at unity.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

I find the article very interesting as a piece of propaganda - it plays heavily into the classic rags to riches meme - just focuses on the individual so to completely ignore the systemic problems that he perpetuated in his "earned" position.