this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2025
39 points (88.2% liked)

Fediverse vs Disinformation

1170 readers
94 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 9 months ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
39
Here’s another super weird pro-Trump article in The Guardian. TL;DR Trump’s tariffs might work, if we start defaulting on treasury bills that would be good, the grand upheaval of 1982 was great stuff. (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sounds good. What was my criticism of applying this particular theoretical framework to what’s going to happen in reality now? Separate from whether the framework is accurate?

I’m not trying to be a dick in asking you this type of question, but I’ve repeated myself a bunch of times on it now. You don’t have to agree with it, I’m just curious what you think my main criticisms are.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What was my criticism of applying this particular theoretical framework to what’s going to happen in reality now? Separate from whether the framework is accurate?

Orange man bad? That's what's been taking up the bulk of your word-count.

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

Nope. Want to try again?

I actually listed a few different examples and supporting arguments, some sarcastically and some not.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Mate stop wasting my time and say your point.

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

I did. You ignored it. That’s why I am doing this alternate approach.

I actually specifically addressed the characterization of what I said as “Orange man bad,” by way of a contrasting example with some pro-Trump stuff I would agree with.

If you’re not really able to read and comprehend, or get offended at the suggestion that it might be important that you do so, then I think I don’t care what your opinion is on these economic theories or these world events. It might be filtered through whatever conceptual blinkers are making it so hard for you to comprehend what I am saying here and causing you to default back to just repeating what you wanted to say.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

uh-huh uh-huh, now get to the point

What was your criticism of connecting this particular economic framework to current world events in the real world?

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

Okay so clearly the time I spent actually explaining clearly where I was coming from, why I was sort of being a jerk and and what my concern was, and pointing you to the specific messages to read because it was kind of unreasonable to tell you just to go hunting through my profile at unspecified length, was wasted.

Again: If I explain it a few times, and you either can’t or won’t pick it up after that, I don’t feel like just making the attempt repeatedly forever. Sorry if that gives offense.

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

Wait, are you saying THIS is what you are calling your "explanation"?

have explained elsewhere, look in my profile. In short, it is normalizing Trump’s sharpie-on-the-weather-map idiocy and making it sound like it’s part of a coherent plan that might “work” when it clearly is not.

So it won't work because Orange Man Bad.

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

Lol

You read the place where I said I've already addressed it, and failed to notice that part, and only noticed the part where I quickly touched on the TLDR of what I'd already addressed in more detail previously. Is that what happened?

This definitely sounds like a reading comprehension issue. Slow down. Read! It is good for you.

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

I've read all 19 of your comments in the two threads. Apart from the points about Treasury Bills and manufacturing capacity, you keep saying you have another analysis there but the rest of us are not smart enough to see it. It's incredibly obviously a naked emperor.

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

I’m fine with many many points of view, including pro-Trump ones if they make sense (one random example from recently being that he seems genuinely surprised and angry that Russia broke the cease-fire instantly). My complaint with this article is not that it’s pro-Trump, it’s that it is horseshit.

There's also this:

He literally thinks (or thought, at one point, I don’t know if he still does) that the country doing the exporting pays the tariff. He put 50% tariffs on Lethoso. That’s not underestimating, that’s just facts.

Other more coherent people have written about his motivations, the source of his tariff ideas, all kinds of stuff. You can do analysis of any of his ideas and the goals (if any) behind them without agreeing with any of it. But this article’s thesis is more or less “he’s trying to devalue the dollar to set right the balance of trade, and it might work” and that is a bunch of sanewashing and horseshit with some additional fantasies about how well Reagan’s stuff worked out thrown in for good measure.

You've given your argument before that Trump is "one random guy", and it's erroneous to focus on him when talking about tariffs or talking about this article. Still want to stick with that? I merely ask for information.

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

That wasnt so hard was it??

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I mean apparently it defeated you lol. Like I said, I'm trying to help you with your reading comprehension and research abilities apparently.

Also:

You’ve given your argument before that Trump is “one random guy”, and it’s erroneous to focus on him when talking about tariffs or talking about this article. Still want to stick with that? I merely ask for information.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Your explanation of why the plan won't work is Orange Man Bad. You wasted time with the naked emperor act, but it's still naked.

The tariff plan won't work if:

  • The Americans lack the political trust and international goodwill to make a 'Mar-A-Lago Accord' and the international community makes an exclusionary deal. I think this isn't very likely because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_markets

  • The Americans don't execute the plan in 3¾yr and the new government backs down from the plan.

  • The USA lacks can't build/import industrial capacity before the political support for the plan runs out. China built a manufacturing industry in 20-25yr, but they build faster.

  • The world responds with accelerated de-dollarisation. Then perhaps a trade deal/tariff deal would happen but they'd lose the exorbitant privilege they've had for 81 years.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedollarisation / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege

  • If the oligarchs force a climbdown because of the asset crash

  • If the common people force a climbdown because of the cost-of-living hike (least likely)