• Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I’m advocating for awareness and critical thinking, not paranoia. The New York Times article I shared outlines how influence operations have grown more sophisticated, with bots and handled accounts leveraging LLMs to mimic real engagement while derailing or inflaming discussions. Recognizing these tactics isn’t about dismissing individuals—it’s about understanding patterns of manipulation that have been well-documented. Identifying bad-faith engagement isn’t an ad hominem attack; it’s a necessary part of critical discourse. If you disagree, that’s fine, but ignoring the issue doesn’t make it disappear.

    • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago

      an accusation of bad faith is almost always itself bad faith. you can explain the problems with someone’s claims or reasoning without accusing them of intentionally being dishonest.

      • Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Pointing out patterns of manipulation isn’t the same as accusing individuals of bad faith. Influence operations are well-documented, and recognizing when engagement follows known tactics is about awareness, not personal attacks. If someone is engaging in good faith, discussing these concerns shouldn’t be an issue. Still, I believe it’s more prudent to acknowledge and warn others about the presence of bad actors on the platform than to ignore the reality that they exist.