762
Unsealed FBI doc exposes terrifying depth of Russian disinfo scheme
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2024
762 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
2660 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's a slippery slope to start assuming people are bots or paid shills. Whos to say everyone that agreed with you at first weren't bots and then regular people came in and commented their own opinion that went against the first wave of bots?
Not everyone that thinks capitalism is broken is a paid Russian agent. I'm assuming that is what you are referring too. Some are very extreme in their views but the most likely explanation is that they are a combination of stupid and mad.
Not the green party or communist not jobs necessarily, but the Pro-Putin, "Ukraine is Nazis", warmongering types...yup.
I'd argue they are still most likely just idiots that got wrapped up in foreign propaganda, and not necessarily paid to post on lemmy of all places.
I just think calling people bots and shills has no place in honest discourse and the brushstroke always tends to get bigger and bigger.
Bots and shills have no place in honest discourse, but they obviously exist. Should we pretend they don't—assume everyone is arguing in good faith, regardless of how blatantly dishonest and inconsistent they are? What would you suggest?
I don't disagree that there's a slippery slope problem; there's no shortage of fringe internet echo chambers that dismiss all dissenting opinions as coming from npc's, cia shills, shitlibs, bloodmouths, breeders, , etc.
It's a though problem but essentially yes. We should only ban because of content, so anything pro-putin would get the hammer but that comes with it's own problems. It's hard to draw the line. Is being pro-isreal an acceptable stance (not morally, thats obvious, but ban wise)? What about being pro-gasoline cars? I've been tempted many times to assume people bashing EVs are oil industry shills but it's really just people that fell for their propaganda and not someone that is actively participating in it. For the most part, downvotes do their job but everyone knows those can easily be manipulated as well.
If the news was about pro-AI bots floating around, I would probably be accused of being one because I'm very outspoken about it when it's a dissenting opinion on lemmy.
I just don't think it's a good standard to keep. I don't have a solution but I think trying to call out people on it will just end up in people calling each other that when ever an argument goes badly. In the end, I view it as a form of rhetoric.
I guess what we want to do is to cultivate a community where people—and especially bots—will have a hard time engaging dishonestly. Having said that, I'm no closer to knowing how to do it. The struggle with ~~misinformation~~ disinformation seems like an arms race where the bad actors will always have the advantage.
You didn't read the article
Where in the article does it mention lemmy? As far as I am concerned, we do not have any influencers and we definitely won't be on the list.
I'm just saying assuming people are bots is a bad habit. Why not just assume I'm a paid shills and disregard my points? See how easy it is and why it shouldn't be encouraged?
Pretty sure they're making veiled shill accusations at anyone who isn't 100% on board with arming Netanyahu until his genocide is complete.