With @surph_ninja’s follow-up links, it’s not quite ‘misinformation’. More like, bonkers extrapolation, based on slivers of cherry-picked truth. The nuttiness exposes itself.
Claiming that CIRES thing amounts to “the US was expanding and annexing territory in the arctic during the Biden admin”? Thinking a propaganda quote from 2023 shows “all [war allies’] military assets & ammunition reserves” are being depleted?
Nah, I’ll let it stand. When gullible people show how they swallow whatever they swallow and regurgitate, it’s educational (just not in the way @surph_ninja thinks).
Sounds good to me. The comment itself isn’t all that bad. I think, as you said, it’s extrapolating from something objectively true to leap to an endpoint that’s totally nuts.
A lot of my reaction was from the combination of this particular conclusion being totally out there, and it being in service of a particular type of pro-Russian-viewpoint talking point, and the pattern of that type of thing being a very clear and consistent pattern from this user in the past. But I do agree with you. Usually, it’s better to just let people talk. It’s educational.
It’s not good. We let these people just throw shit at the wall constantly and no one has the time or ability to sort through it all. With plain text looking exactly the same no matter the argument the uninterested get snookered into thinking there might actually be a valid counter argument. You were right the first time. This shit is all noise drowning out the message and making people tune out.
Yeah. I’m not aware of a good solution. I don’t want to let every comments section have random “and THAT’s why NATO is terrible and China/Russia are by far the lesser evil in geopolitics as everyone knows” comments interjected into it unchallenged. I don’t want every comments section to get taken over by extensive arguments about who is and isn’t a Russian propagandist. And I don’t want every comments section to be picked through by some kind of arbiter of who are the “allowed” comments, so that anyone who’s provisionally identified as propaganda gets removed never to be seen again. Even if there were someone who had time to do that, which there isn’t, that’s not going to wind up being implemented perfectly if that were the system.
My MO is to call out the very severe propaganda when I see it, talk about how I see it as a problem and why, without getting drawn into the endless bickering into which the propaganda accounts inevitably like to draw anyone who responds to them. It doesn’t seem like an ideal solution, but it’s the best reaction I can see.
I do think it’s fair to ban the ones that are just laughably obvious, I guess, for the sake of all of our sanity, since they’re clearly bringing nothing anyone wants to the table. At the same time, all that is going to do is set a higher bar, which I’m sure they will be able to clear. And also, it sets a precedent for moderators aggressively policing comments sections and kicking out the “wrong” people, which the propaganda accounts are also able to manipulate to their advantage when that becomes the norm. That’s a whole other conversation. That’s why I mostly don’t go on lemmy.world, this community being one of a few rare and sensible exceptions.
I’ve started just blocking them on the off chance they are powered by AI. I’ll give one to two comments to see if they will attempt good faith but if there is no sign they are capable I don’t want to be a part of their disinformation strategy ever again.
I think the answer is to let people self identify. Something like a profile and then allowing users(and instances) to sort or filter incomplete profiles and keywords/phrases. Sure you can get an AI to create unique generic profiles but the second you look at them you’ll be able to decipher the quality of their content and distinguish immediately.
Of course this could lead to more insular communities but I’m actually for that. I am for like minded people finding each other and organizing. In this way these people can juice each other up to maybe take action without some infiltrator coming in and difusing the momentum.
Yeah. I think Mastodon’s model where there are no “communities,” just networks of trust with users choosing to follow or interact with each other and where there is no way to automatically get your stuff shown to everyone until trusted people have affirmatively given you approval for what you have to say, is just a better model. The reddit-like model is just too open to anonymous accounts in groups manipulating the conversation.
I am not “pro-Russia.” I am simply not anti-Russia enough to promote the lies & narratives to justify US aggression, and you accuse everything critical of US foreign policy of being pro-Russia.
I’m a particular thorn in your side because I come with receipts, and it makes your attempts to get it censored fall flat. Though I’m sure you get away with it anyway in the Politics community mods.
See, this is what I meant about the chess game. You can say I accuse everything critical of US foreign policy et cetera. I can send you a big wall of text of about 10 different times in the last 24 hours that I was critical about US foreign and domestic policy. And it will make absolutely no impact on what you say. You’ve just got your thing you want to say, and you’re going to keep broadcasting it at everyone, and what they say makes no difference.
Do you want me to? I did that a while back when someone made the same accusation. If you want, I’ll dig up the comment and send it to you, to illustrate that this is one more thing you’re saying that has no connection to reality.
Like I say, I think engaging in this conversation is a mistake for you. It’s highlighting something that you really should be wanting to downplay. I’m happy to talk about it if you’ve decided you want to, though.
Yes, Phil. We know. You already spelled out your strategy for making sock puppet accounts believable, in this very same comment section. A real grand master in that chess game!
Do you believe your tepid criticism cancels out your imperialism defense here? Or your reflexive accusation of ‘Russian bot’ every time someone criticizes US foreign policy, or raises the alarm about the US currently escalating to world war by attacking on multiple fronts across the globe as we speak?
You know what doesn’t help your credibility? Your continual jump between ‘what are you talking about? I’m not aware of any such thing’ to ‘I’m actually thoroughly informed, and here’s why what they did is justified’ the moment someone provides a source. You can’t play dumb and pretend you have a better understanding than anyone of the facts. Pick a lane.
I’m trying not to prolong this exchange, because it’s no longer adding anything. I feel like at this point pretty much everything that needs to be said has been. You can draw your conclusions. The only thing I’ll add is that, at the point of the above links, I don’t think I had pegged surph_ninja as conclusively a propaganda account, let alone a ‘Russian bot’ which I’ve never said. I just thought he was talking nonsense. I read his sources and then was talking with him about his argument at face value. After a while of doing that, and encountering a particular breed of total non-logic and a particular style of argumentation in service of a particular viewpoint, I formed a pretty strong conclusion that he is doing pro-Russian propaganda. But I think some of the conversation from above is from back before that happened.
Edit: Changed from double quotes to single, around ‘Russian bot’. Happy now?
Anyway, I’d really love if one person would answer the question on whether it’s also ok for China and Russia to keep expanding their claims into the sea, if we’re gonna say it’s ok for the US.
It’s self-evident bonkers extrapolation, shown by simply comparing your claims with the links you’ve offered as support.
My trick for surviving in the wilds of the internet is an early end to conversations with folks who seem immune to words, logic, common sense, etc. It would be nice if that wasn’t you.
With @surph_ninja’s follow-up links, it’s not quite ‘misinformation’. More like, bonkers extrapolation, based on slivers of cherry-picked truth. The nuttiness exposes itself.
Claiming that CIRES thing amounts to “the US was expanding and annexing territory in the arctic during the Biden admin”? Thinking a propaganda quote from 2023 shows “all [war allies’] military assets & ammunition reserves” are being depleted?
Nah, I’ll let it stand. When gullible people show how they swallow whatever they swallow and regurgitate, it’s educational (just not in the way @surph_ninja thinks).
Sounds good to me. The comment itself isn’t all that bad. I think, as you said, it’s extrapolating from something objectively true to leap to an endpoint that’s totally nuts.
A lot of my reaction was from the combination of this particular conclusion being totally out there, and it being in service of a particular type of pro-Russian-viewpoint talking point, and the pattern of that type of thing being a very clear and consistent pattern from this user in the past. But I do agree with you. Usually, it’s better to just let people talk. It’s educational.
It’s not good. We let these people just throw shit at the wall constantly and no one has the time or ability to sort through it all. With plain text looking exactly the same no matter the argument the uninterested get snookered into thinking there might actually be a valid counter argument. You were right the first time. This shit is all noise drowning out the message and making people tune out.
Yeah. I’m not aware of a good solution. I don’t want to let every comments section have random “and THAT’s why NATO is terrible and China/Russia are by far the lesser evil in geopolitics as everyone knows” comments interjected into it unchallenged. I don’t want every comments section to get taken over by extensive arguments about who is and isn’t a Russian propagandist. And I don’t want every comments section to be picked through by some kind of arbiter of who are the “allowed” comments, so that anyone who’s provisionally identified as propaganda gets removed never to be seen again. Even if there were someone who had time to do that, which there isn’t, that’s not going to wind up being implemented perfectly if that were the system.
My MO is to call out the very severe propaganda when I see it, talk about how I see it as a problem and why, without getting drawn into the endless bickering into which the propaganda accounts inevitably like to draw anyone who responds to them. It doesn’t seem like an ideal solution, but it’s the best reaction I can see.
I do think it’s fair to ban the ones that are just laughably obvious, I guess, for the sake of all of our sanity, since they’re clearly bringing nothing anyone wants to the table. At the same time, all that is going to do is set a higher bar, which I’m sure they will be able to clear. And also, it sets a precedent for moderators aggressively policing comments sections and kicking out the “wrong” people, which the propaganda accounts are also able to manipulate to their advantage when that becomes the norm. That’s a whole other conversation. That’s why I mostly don’t go on lemmy.world, this community being one of a few rare and sensible exceptions.
I’ve started just blocking them on the off chance they are powered by AI. I’ll give one to two comments to see if they will attempt good faith but if there is no sign they are capable I don’t want to be a part of their disinformation strategy ever again.
I think the answer is to let people self identify. Something like a profile and then allowing users(and instances) to sort or filter incomplete profiles and keywords/phrases. Sure you can get an AI to create unique generic profiles but the second you look at them you’ll be able to decipher the quality of their content and distinguish immediately.
Of course this could lead to more insular communities but I’m actually for that. I am for like minded people finding each other and organizing. In this way these people can juice each other up to maybe take action without some infiltrator coming in and difusing the momentum.
Yeah. I think Mastodon’s model where there are no “communities,” just networks of trust with users choosing to follow or interact with each other and where there is no way to automatically get your stuff shown to everyone until trusted people have affirmatively given you approval for what you have to say, is just a better model. The reddit-like model is just too open to anonymous accounts in groups manipulating the conversation.
I am not “pro-Russia.” I am simply not anti-Russia enough to promote the lies & narratives to justify US aggression, and you accuse everything critical of US foreign policy of being pro-Russia.
I’m a particular thorn in your side because I come with receipts, and it makes your attempts to get it censored fall flat. Though I’m sure you get away with it anyway in the Politics community mods.
See, this is what I meant about the chess game. You can say I accuse everything critical of US foreign policy et cetera. I can send you a big wall of text of about 10 different times in the last 24 hours that I was critical about US foreign and domestic policy. And it will make absolutely no impact on what you say. You’ve just got your thing you want to say, and you’re going to keep broadcasting it at everyone, and what they say makes no difference.
Do you want me to? I did that a while back when someone made the same accusation. If you want, I’ll dig up the comment and send it to you, to illustrate that this is one more thing you’re saying that has no connection to reality.
Like I say, I think engaging in this conversation is a mistake for you. It’s highlighting something that you really should be wanting to downplay. I’m happy to talk about it if you’ve decided you want to, though.
Yes, Phil. We know. You already spelled out your strategy for making sock puppet accounts believable, in this very same comment section. A real grand master in that chess game!
Do you believe your tepid criticism cancels out your imperialism defense here? Or your reflexive accusation of ‘Russian bot’ every time someone criticizes US foreign policy, or raises the alarm about the US currently escalating to world war by attacking on multiple fronts across the globe as we speak?
You know what doesn’t help your credibility? Your continual jump between ‘what are you talking about? I’m not aware of any such thing’ to ‘I’m actually thoroughly informed, and here’s why what they did is justified’ the moment someone provides a source. You can’t play dumb and pretend you have a better understanding than anyone of the facts. Pick a lane.
For anyone who’s still reading this trainwreck of a conversation. Check this out:
https://lemmy.world/comment/14157938
There’s some further wider context here: https://lemmy.world/comment/14154055
I’m trying not to prolong this exchange, because it’s no longer adding anything. I feel like at this point pretty much everything that needs to be said has been. You can draw your conclusions. The only thing I’ll add is that, at the point of the above links, I don’t think I had pegged surph_ninja as conclusively a propaganda account, let alone a ‘Russian bot’ which I’ve never said. I just thought he was talking nonsense. I read his sources and then was talking with him about his argument at face value. After a while of doing that, and encountering a particular breed of total non-logic and a particular style of argumentation in service of a particular viewpoint, I formed a pretty strong conclusion that he is doing pro-Russian propaganda. But I think some of the conversation from above is from back before that happened.
Edit: Changed from double quotes to single, around ‘Russian bot’. Happy now?
Notice how my ‘Russian bot’ is in single quotes, and yours is in double?
https://ponder.cat/comment/1445491
Wanna continue denying? Or switch up the story again?
I appreciate you posting another comment thread where I post sources criticizing US policy while you post ad homonyms attacking me. Chef’s kiss.
Notice how you can’t resist responding after he said he was done?
LoL. I must be in love him, huh?
Anyway, I’d really love if one person would answer the question on whether it’s also ok for China and Russia to keep expanding their claims into the sea, if we’re gonna say it’s ok for the US.
How is that a “bonkers extrapolation”? The US expanded the regions they claim in the arctic under Biden. That’s a fact.
Do you apply the same apologist take to China expanding its claims farther out from the coasts?
It’s self-evident bonkers extrapolation, shown by simply comparing your claims with the links you’ve offered as support.
My trick for surviving in the wilds of the internet is an early end to conversations with folks who seem immune to words, logic, common sense, etc. It would be nice if that wasn’t you.
It’s not evident to me.
I’m open to be swayed. Why is this expansion of US claims acceptable and not an annexation?
And why is this expansion considered forgettable, but we label every expansion done by China in the exact same way considered an aggression?