835
I for one have stopped posting any content to lemmy.ml communities.
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 23 Nov 2024
835 points (100.0% liked)
memes
10696 readers
2228 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I see a lot more of that on .world communities, specifically the news and political memes communities will remove comments for "misinformation" even if you're citing academic works.
As they should
I've seen the "academic works" y'all cite, blog posts, YT videos, random books and retracted studies
So if we're not allowed to cite books, what exactly do you want?
Who is citing those? I've had liberals link hour long youtube essays and I just say "lol I'm not going to read that", but I've not noticed anyone on the left doing that.
If the .world admins are doing it too, it's also bad. Thankfully I didn't list a single .world community, although for another reason.
Citing some random paper doesn't make what your saying not disinformation.
Classically lemmy.world.
“Your peer reviewed academic studies are misinformation, do you not read the news ?”
Mazières, D., & Kohler, E. (2005). Get me off your fucking mailing list [PDF]. Accepted for publication in the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology in 2014.
From a formal logic perspective, your statement is true. But in real life, the more important distinction is not between "true" and "false", but between "purposefully deceptive and ungenuine disinformation" versus "outspoken dissenting viewpoint". And that is one that people are really bad at telling the difference between, especially if the viewpoint in particular is one that they hold very strongly.