Fediverse vs Disinformation

1246 readers
24 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 10 months ago
MODERATORS
1
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/64675314

Looks like this got deleted from the original community where I posted it, so re-posting what I can remember here.

This screenshot is from a post I made on my city's subreddit.

Monday the Washington Post revealed my city was using a first of its kind mass surveillance and facial recognition software that allows police to track individuals added to a watchlist via cameras installed around the city.

The ACLU is saying it is "the stuff of authoritarian surveillance states, and has no place in American policing.”

“Until now, no American police department has been willing to risk the massive public blowback from using such a brazen face recognition surveillance system,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “By adopting this system–in secret, without safeguards, and at tremendous threat to our privacy and security–the City of New Orleans has crossed a thick red line.

The NOPD has stopped using it since WaPo began investigating because it violated a city ordinance, but federal agents (ICE) and state police are still using the real time tracking app.

I realized after reading an Axios article about it on Wednesday that the ordinance was created after the mayor, suddenly asked the city to lift a blanket ban on the technology and other controversial predictive policing policies.

The city's mayor has been facing federal charges regarding a scandal for several years and is currently just running out the clock on her last term as mayor. She has also been accused of other corruption such as accepting gifts as bribes in the past

The ban on predictive policing policies was originally created following the end of a secret partnership between Palantir and the city of New Orleans from ~2012-2018.

Months after the city first abandoned it's contract with Palantir, Mayor Cantrell seemed to be looking for loopholes that would allow her to continue using controversial predictive policing

I have tried to avoid pile-on critique of the mayor, and I actually voted her the first time she ran. However, one of the most common questions people in my city ask, is "how has she not been arrested?" I want to stress this is my own speculation, but given the details that are emerging now, I do wonder if these charges may have been related to why she so willingly turned over the city's privacy to the federal government in 2022?

The proposed ordinance, if passed, would largely reverse the council’s blanket bans on the use facial recognition and characteristic tracking software, which is similar to facial recognition but for identifying race, gender, outfits, vehicles, walking gait and other attributes. One provision also appears to walk back the city’s ban on predictive policing and cell-site simulators — which intercept and spy on cell phone calls — to locate people suspected of certain serious crimes.

That provision could, for the first time, give the city explicit permission to use a whole host of surveillance technology in certain circumstances, including voice recognition, x-ray vans, “through the wall radar,” social media monitoring software, “tools used to gain unauthorized access to a computer,” and more.

Lastly the proposal would allow the city to use “social media or communications software or applications for the purpose of communicating with the public, provided such use does not include the affirmative use of any face surveillance.” The Lens asked Tidwell and Green why this was included and what it was meant to allow, but neither responded.

While she may not have realized it at the time, the removal of the ban, along with her oddly warm welcome of the Governor's own state police force, Troop Nola, has placed the entire city in danger as the 2025 Trump administration continues to remove protection for civil rights and liberties as well as oversight for potential abuse of NSA surveillance

Louisiana State Police (LSP) Troop Nola, are now permanently established in the city and cannot be regulated by city policy and regulations. This means that they can also not be regulated by the same city ordinance that compelled the NOPD to pause their use of the controversial surveillance and real time tracking notifications.

As of yesterday, the Justice Department decided to stop investigating civil rights accusations previously made against LSP, while Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry and his long time friend Attorney General Liz Murrill, were reported to have celebrated the decision.

2
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/64452424

This is the first known time an American police department has relied on live facial recognition technology cameras at scale, and is a radical and dangerous escalation of the power to surveil people as we go about our daily lives.

According to The Washington Post, since 2023 the city has relied on face recognition-enabled surveillance cameras through the “Project NOLA” private camera network. These cameras scan every face that passes by and send real-time alerts directly to officers’ phones when they detect a purported match to someone on a secretive, privately maintained watchlist.

3
 
 

If the article's intent was to let the facts speak for themselves, it forgot to invite them. Instead, Tracy leveraged the full weight of his employer, America's paper of record, to ask an entertainer who sings with Elmo about how to go to school if she would care to comment about receiving money from Hamas. Nasty work.

4
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/64252755

Archive link without paywall: https://archive.is/Wod1E

New Orleans Police Superintendent Anne Kirkpatrick said city police weren’t notified about the escape until 10:30 a.m., about two hours after the routine headcount turned up short. The department then set out to inform the public so people could protect themselves and help with the search.

“We wanted to immediately notify our public because we knew these escapees would be in our city,” she said before promising a “full court effort” to track down the escapees.

Kirkpatrick declined to criticize the sheriff’s office but said the delay in reporting the escape was “concerning.” When asked whether Hutson should have let her know about the escape sooner, the superintendent demurred.

“We’ll deal with that at another time,” she said.

Last year, Hutson requested the New Orleans City Council increase her budget by 60 percent, from $55.3 million to $88.3 million to deal with an influx of inmates, according to nola.com. The sheriff told city leaders her office was holding far more people than the jail and her staff could handle, costing millions in unexpected expenses.

The roughly 1,500 inmates the jail has housed for the last year has been well above the 1,250-inmate limit the city council had put in place and far more than the 900 inmates her deputies can safely oversee, the news agency reported. “We are underfunded, understaffed, underpaid, so we do our best to hire staff and retain them,” Hutson said Friday, “but like everyone else, we’re short.”

The jailbreak is the latest in a series of oddly high profile incidents regarding the Orleans Parish Sheriff Susan Hutson over the last several weeks.

The current Governor of Louisiana has critiqued New Orleans sanctuary policy for handling immigration since at least 2017, when he was Attorney General for the state. The policy is the result of a federal consent decree handed down by the Department of Justice.

In 2024, the mayor of New Orleans, who has been under legal pressure due to her own corruption scandal, ignored concerns of many civil rights advocates, when she sided with the Governor to establish a permanent state police (Troop Nola) presence in the city.

Governor Landry claimed this was necessary to reverse damage to NOPD caused by the Federal decree.

The following has all seriously happened in New Orleans over the last 2.5 weeks:

•Sanctuary city trial. The current Louisiana AG filed charges against Hutson to force her to lift what the state argues is a sanctuary city policy, relating to a federal decree placed on NOPD by the DOJ.

The AG, a long time friend of Governor Landry, argued that New Orleans was in violation of state law created last year.

That law was written by Blake Miguez, a different long time friend of Landry and member of his Louisiana DOGE taskforce. Miguez has also been helping the Governor restructure the Louisiana board of ethics following claims of ethics board violation, which have allowed Landry the ability to appoint the majority of the members of the ethics board directly, with less oversight.

Ultimately, the federal judge ruled that she did not believe AG Murrill had the authority to make those claims against Hutson.

A Trump EO about ending federal decrees and sanctuary cities was released on the Monday night, (less than 48 hrs) before the Wednesday trial

The Saturday after the trial, the city held a vote to continue a millage, so that a small amount of property tax would fund the jail. Hutson said she needed the funds to make repairs to the jail, but faced a bizarre disinformation campaign falsely claiming voting yes would raise taxes. Nobody has ever taken credit for the signs placed around the city.

It just barely passed by 2 votes. A request for a recount was filed early the next week.

The recount request was filed under an alias by somebody who had previously run for elected office in Louisiana, and was previously involved in revealing an astroturfing scandal against the city The recount ultimately increased the number of yes votes so the millage passed by 4 votes.

This past Tuesday the city submitted a request to lift the consent decree. The request was filed right at the 5 pm deadline

Thursday Governor Landry released an EO urging Louisiana law enforcement to partner with ICE

From the Office of the Governor news release Governor Jeff Landry Partners with President Donald Trump to Launch “Operation GEAUX”

•Late Thursday night/early Friday morning, 11 prisoners escape from Orleans Parish jail

•Hutson is up for re-election soon. Candidates running against her are now speaking to the press, claiming this should make her ineligible to run for re-election.

5
 
 

Since Donald Trump's inauguration, OAN personalities have pushed bizarre and inflammatory foreign policy commentary, including referring to Canada as “our vassal state,” calling Greenland ”the new Africa,” and pushing for a revival of “manifest destiny.” They’ve also run cover for Trump over his planned acceptance of a luxury jet from Qatar.

6
 
 

I wrote the book Copaganda based on my years of being a civil rights lawyer and public defender representing the most vulnerable people in our society. I watched as the police and the news media distorted how we think about our collective safety. Copaganda makes us afraid of the most powerless people, helps us ignore far greater harms committed by people with money and power, and always pushes on us the idea that our fears can be solved by more money for police, prosecution, and prisons. Based on the evidence, this idea of more investment in the punishment bureaucracy making us safer is like climate science denial.

7
 
 

BBC probe finds coordinated social media campaigns, originating abroad, spreading false information against and in favour of new Syrian administration

8
9
10
 
 

I’ve recently had conversations with a number of people who, it turned out, were completely unaware that before the October 7th attack on Israel, Gazans had tried huge non-violent demonstrations for almost two years.

Every week, thousands of unarmed men, women and children in Gaza’s open air prison had gathered in a nonviolent, Gandhian march to end the Israeli blockade that was strangling them and to return to their stolen homes and villages.

And every week Israeli snipers had shot dozens of them, killing and maiming unarmed people of all ages – men, women, children, medics, journalists. On the first day alone, atleast fifteen people were killed and 750 others were shot. (See detailed reports here. and videos below.)

Yet, US news reports mentioned these so infrequently, if at all, that many Americans have no idea that these massive weekly demonstrations even took place.

One of the most blatant and egregious examples is PBS.

PBS’s Frontline program had actually co-produced a documentary with the BBC about the Great March. While this still contained considerable pro-Israel spin, It showed a level of Israeli violence that most Americans never see.

At the last minute, PBS suddenly canceled the broadcast.

The reason given was that it was simply postponed because of a more important breaking news story.

However, the allegedly timely news story that preempted the Gaza documentary consisted of a minimal, widely known update to a news story that had been on the website for 2 months. PBS told callers the film would be broadcast at some unnamed time in the future.

The next story from PBS was that the film was supposedly not a PBS documentary, even though it had been announced as such in numerous places. Moreover, this fraudulent excuse had not even been mentioned when the film was preempted. The upshot was that PBS now announced it would never show it.

Had this film not been blocked, quite likely vastly more Americans would have seen Palestinians’ courageous attempt to use nonviolence, would have seen Israeli soldiers shooting unarmed demonstraters in cold blood, and more Americans would have demanded that their government stop supporting Israel… And then, perhaps, the desperate October 7th breakout would not have occurred.

11
12
13
14
 
 

Cross-posted from "Russia behind dozens of disinformation campaigns targeting Ukraine and allies, France says" by @randomname@scribe.disroot.org in !europe@feddit.org


French authorities said Wednesday they had tracked nearly 80 disinformation campaigns led by Russian operators between August 2023 and early March 2025, mainly targeting Ukraine and its allies, including France.

The estimate by the French agency countering foreign online attacks, Viginum, said the campaign was "particularly... effective in distributing anti-Ukrainian and anti-Western narratives to Western audiences".

The so-called "Storm-1516" campaign uses artificial intelligence to create realistic profiles, pays amateur operators, and poses a "significant threat to the digital public debate, both in France and across all European countries," the agency said.

"The European public debate is being pounded by disinformation campaigns conducted by Russian entities and relayed especially by the American far-right," said French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot in a statement to AFP, adding that Russian entities had targeted the French legislative elections of 2024.

...

The Viginum report highlighted the role of American far-right influencers or pro-Russian influencers like Adrien Bocquet, a "former French soldier exiled in Russia", who amplify the dissemination of false information.

Some of the false information -- such as the alleged purchase by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of a former Nazi building in Germany or a luxury hotel in Courchevel -- have been verified by AFP's digital investigative team in articles available on AFP Factuel's website (factuel.afp.com).

...

The disinformation-fighting organisation NewsGuard previously attributed to Storm-1516 a video supposedly showing a Chadian migrant confessing to raping a 12-year-old girl in France. Another, AI-generated video accused Brigitte Macron, the wife of President Emmanuel Macron, of sexual assault.

15
16
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/63196442

Deregulation is also foundational policy. Kratsios said that removing regulations that act as “barriers to innovation” will help foster progress in the technology stack within the U.S.

For the final element of OSTP’s “promote” effort, Kratsios said the widespread adoption of these tech solutions will both catalyze domestic efficiency and set an example internationally.

“We as a country need to be having our great industry at companies, academic institutions and everyday Americans using this technology,” he said. “But also, even more importantly, we need to have the rest of the world running on an AI stack that is ours, that’s American.”

Deploying these solutions within the federal government is also a critical step to promoting U.S. leadership in emerging tech and science realms. Kratsios said that accelerating adoption at a public- and private-sector level, potentially facilitated with the help of the deregulation policies, will help further drive U.S. innovation.

“Those breakthroughs are only really valuable if we actually adopt them and allow the American people to fully realize the benefits of those technologies,” Kratsios said. “But if no one is using it, if the Department of Defense isn't actually adopting and using it in its stack, if all of our great financial institutions aren't attempting to leverage those models to drive better services for their customers, it really doesn't matter.”

He added that the White House is contemplating the idea of creating an “ecosystem of trust” to facilitate adoption of new U.S. technologies.

While the EU is aiming to become the global leader for more ethical and trustworthy AI via improved regulatory laws, Peter Theil protege and current science advisor to president Trump, Michael Kratsios, has again indicated the U.S. is taking the polar opposite approach, and once again emphasized the need for deregulation while attempting to dominate the global AI race.

Although the U.S. previously joined the U.K. and E.U., in September of 2024, signing the first “legally binding” treaty on AI, to ensure use of AI aligns with “human rights, democracy and the rule of law,” the Trump administration began distancing the U.S. from a unified stance on AI regulations, within the first month Trump took office in 2025.

At a global summit in Paris, this past February, the U.S. and U.K. refused to join dozens of other countries including France, China and India, agreeing to an "open", "inclusive" and "ethical" approach to AI development.

While the U.K. government claimed it did not sign due to concerns over national security and global governance, Vice President J.D. Vance indicated the U.S.refusal was due to concerns over strict regulations, stating it could "kill a transformative industry just as it's taking off". Vance vowed that the U.S. would not squander an opportunity to grow AI policies over safety concerns

As Chief Technology Officer during Trump's first administration, Kratsios would have certainly been involved in the policy and decision making regarding Clearview AI's controversial facial recognition technology and it's use by FBI and ICE. In fact, a 2019 interview with Kratsios indicates he opposed the regulation of controversial facial recognition technology.

Given Kratsios previous leadership and dismissal of regulations when promoting what is now recognized as extremely controversial A.I. technology, the Trump administration's repeated attempts to shift the U.S. away from consensus with the E.U.'s focus on the necessity of regulations, should perhaps alarm any American citizens with their own ethical concerns regarding AI technology, privacy, and human rights.

While Trump has asked Kratsios to utilize AI technology to blaze a trail for America in 2025, it may also be worth noting that just over 5 years ago, in March of 2020, Kratsios was also tasked by Trump to use cutting edge technology to tackle COVID misinformation and track early cases of the virus in the U.S. in order to keep it from spreading..

17
 
 

Let’s face it: a new generation of scholarship has changed the way we understand American history, particularly slavery, capitalism, and the Civil War. Our language should change as well. The old labels and terms handed down to us from the conservative scholars of the early to mid-twentieth century no longer reflect the best evidence and arguments. The tired terms served either to reassure worried Americans in a Cold War world, or uphold a white supremacist, sexist interpretation of the past. The Cold War is over, and we must reject faulty frameworks and phrases. We no longer call the Civil War “The War Between the States,” nor do we refer to women’s rights activists as “suffragettes,” nor do we call African-Americans “Negroes.” Language has changed before, and I propose that it should change again.

Legal historian Paul Finkelman (Albany Law) has made a compelling case against the label “compromise” to describe the legislative packages that avoided disunion in the antebellum era.1 In particular, Finkelman has dissected and analyzed the deals struck in 1850. Instead of the “Compromise of 1850,” which implies that both North and South gave and received equally in the bargains over slavery, the legislation should be called the “Appeasement of 1850.” Appeasement more accurately describes the uneven nature of the agreement. In 1849 and 1850, white Southerners in Congress made demands and issued threats concerning the spread and protection of slavery, and, as in 1820 and 1833, Northerners acquiesced: the slave states obtained almost everything they demanded, including an obnoxious Fugitive Slave Law, enlarged Texas border, payment of Texas debts, potential spread of slavery into new western territories, the protection of the slave trade in Washington, DC, and the renunciation of congressional authority over slavery. The free states, in turn, received almost nothing (California was permitted to enter as a free state, but residents had already voted against slavery). Hardly a compromise!

Likewise, scholar Edward Baptist (Cornell) has provided new terms with which to speak about slavery. In his 2014 book The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism (Basic Books), he rejects “plantations” (a term pregnant with false memory and romantic myths) in favor of “labor camps”; instead of “slave-owners” (which seems to legitimate and rationalize the ownership of human beings), he uses “enslavers.” Small changes with big implications. These far more accurate and appropriate terms serve his argument well, as he re-examines the role of unfree labor in the rise of the United States as an economic powerhouse and its place in the global economy. In order to tear down old myths, he eschews the old language.

I suggest we follow the lead of Finkelman and Baptist and alter our language for the Civil War. Specifically, let us drop the word “Union” when describing the United States side of the conflagration, as in “Union troops” versus “Confederate troops.” Instead of “Union,” we should say “United States.” By employing “Union” instead of “United States,” we are indirectly supporting the Confederate view of secession wherein the nation of the United States collapsed, having been built on a “sandy foundation” (according to rebel Vice President Alexander Stephens). In reality, however, the United States never ceased to exist. The Constitution continued to operate normally; elections were held; Congress, the presidency, and the courts functioned; diplomacy was conducted; taxes were collected; crimes were punished; etc. Yes, there was a massive, murderous rebellion in at least a dozen states, but that did not mean that the United States disappeared. The dichotomy of “Union v. Confederacy” is no longer acceptable language; its usage lends credibility to the Confederate experiment and undermines the legitimacy of the United States as a political entity. The United States of America fought a brutal war against a highly organized and fiercely determined rebellion – it did not stop functioning or morph into something different. We can continue to debate the nature and existence of Confederate “nationalism,” but that discussion should not affect how we label the United States during the war.

Why should we continue to employ wording that is biased, false, or laden with myth? Compromise, plantation, slave-owners, Union v. Confederacy, etc.: these phrases and many others obscure rather than illuminate; they serve the interests of traditionalists or white supremacists; they do not accurately reflect our current understanding of phenomena, thus they should be abandoned and replaced. I call upon historians in all fields to reexamine their language and terminology. Let us be careful and deliberate with our wording; though we study the past, let us not be chained to it.

(emphasis added)

18
19
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/43498121

There were many disheartening moments during the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign for progressives who support Palestinian rights. Yet few were quite as deflating as that moment when the ostensibly progressive, leading member of The Squad, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stood at the podium at the Democratic National Convention and told the audience that then-Vice President Kamala Harris was “working tirelessly to secure a ceasefire in Gaza and bring the hostages home.”

We knew she was lying. AOC herself knew she was lying. But it was just the message that the crowd—who were more than eager to show their support for the Democrats despite the party’s utter refusal to allow even the most conciliatory and moderate Palestinian voice to be heard—wanted to hear, and they ate it up.

The utterly shameless nature of the lie has now been confirmed by no less than nine officials from Joe Biden’s administration and reported on by Israel’s own Channel 13 news program, Hamakor, which, aptly, translates as “The Source.”

20
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/62975323

This is all part of a very long and complicated story, but I am trying to keep track of it all here.

TLDR: LA DOGE accidentally revealed they held a secret meeting with a current employee (Tera LeBlanc) of a private government/FBI contracted company who was formerly a Louisiana Department of Health state employee/executive director of Medicaid

Since then, LA DOGE has partnered with the Louisiana Legislative Auditor (LLA), and accused LDH of misspending Medicaid funds over a 5 year period. It turns out LeBlanc was in charge of that program for 4 of the 5 years, before leaving LDH to work in her current role for Guidehouse Consulting group.

Since LeBlanc is no longer in the role, LDH appears to be blaming others for the misspent funds Leblanc was in charge of for 4/5 years. Hospitals participating in the program have mysteriously fired several doctors at the same time, in my own city and all across the state while LDH (which is currently run by Governor appointees) seems to be arguing Louisiana proves why Medicaid is unsustainable since no doctors will accept patients on Medicaid (maybe bc they were all fired at once??).

Sure would be nice to have some kind of a public record to know what was discussed in those meetings between Guidehouse and paid state officials held on public property, that weren't really meetings, and totally didn't violate the meeting transparency laws.

If they had been meetings, the taskforce would have been required by law to: advertise when and where it will meet, allow the public a chance to speak at meeting, and record meeting minutes that will become publicly available. They of course didn’t do any of that. No one involved in LA DOGE is facing any legal repercussions for some odd reason 🤷‍♀️

The Louisiana Legislative Auditor (LLA) would be the one to bring charges for violation of the meeting law, but they partnered with LA DOGE as questions about these meetings were starting to pop up and are now helping the governor with his own Robespierre-like reign of terror, except the cuts are all budget related instead of guillotine (at least for now).

That would be the same LLA that brought forth the accusations against LDH after the secret meetings that weren't really meetings, saying an audit found Medicaid fraud.

So, now the LLA only cares about enforcing transparency laws for other people.

I'm not a journalist, but for some reason I'm the only one who is trying to bring attention to the fact that [Leblanc was in charge of this program that is being accused of fraud by the LLA for 4 of the 5 years, before leaving LDH and joining her former LDH supervisor to begin working for Guidehouse Consulting.

I think journalists are being intimidated and/or information is being suppressed all over the state. There is some really insane shit happening in Louisiana right now.

We also just had the DOJ help our AG (also happens to be a pal of Gov Landry) lift an ongoing lawsuit that had to be issued in 1966 to enforce desegregation in a Louisiana public school!

The whole trying to pretend the civil rights act didn't happen at least got some attention, but everything else flooding the zone in Louisiana seems to be flying under the radar. Since the whole country is currently on fire, nobody seems to really have the time to notice or care, but it does seem like the Governor of Louisiana is allowing us to serve as a bit of a guinea pig for all of Trump's authoritarian policies before he unleashes it on a larger scale to the rest of the country.

Also the Heritage Foundation is currently paying to run local tv ads promoting Gov Landry's policies.

TLDR II: Even if nothing happens to these corrupt pieces of shit, they're destroying my home and my country. I'm not going to just shut up and be quiet about it. If they didn't care they wouldn't be trying so hard to keep information suppressed while paying so much money to try and spread their own disinformation.

21
 
 

On May 2, 2014, a tragic incident occurred in the southern Ukrainian port city of Odesa, becoming one of the most widely exploited narratives in Russian propaganda.

That day, as more than 1,000 Ukrainian activists gathered in the city to show support for the Ukrainian government, a group of pro-Russian protestors showed up to meet them — many armed with clubs, axes, and guns.

They began violently attacking the Ukrainian activists, two of whom were shot and killed as the events unfolded. The activists and those outraged by the attack began to fight back.

"It began with them throwing cobblestones at us," Victoria Sybir, a former secretary of a volunteer civilian defense group formed in Odesa to repel attacks on protesters, told the Kyiv Independent, recalling the events back then.

"We fought back as we could, but then two (Ukrainian activists) were killed after being shot," she said.

As tensions mounted, the Ukrainian activists dismantled a tent encampment set up by the other side, forcing the pro-Russian group to barricade themselves in Odesa's Soviet-era Trade Unions Building.

It was from there that the pro-Russian protestors began throwing Molotov cocktails and explosives to fight off those standing outside, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found in an investigation following the event. The activists began launching Molotov cocktails at the building in response.

The building caught fire, resulting in the deaths of 42 people, most of them pro-Russian protestors. Another six people were killed that day during the clashes.

Since the fire, Russia has continued to use the tragic events in its propaganda. From the start, Russian media alleged that the real number of casualties in the fire was much higher, and many conspiracy theories were circulated to exploit the tragedy, a 2014 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) committee report found.

The events of May 2, 2014, also figure in Russia's justification for its 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, falsely portraying the events as a "massacre, during which aggressive 'Ukrainian Nazis' had locked peaceful pro-federalists in the Trade Union Building and had burnt them alive," the European court said in its findings of the events.

A scene from the deadly clashes between pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian activists in Odesa, Ukraine, on May 2, 2014. (Maksym Voytenko/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

A common refrain in Russian propaganda used to legitimize its aggression against Ukraine is the baseless and fabricated notion that Ukrainians are "Nazis" and that the Ukrainian government is a "Nazi regime."

The scene — while a flashpoint in the political chaos in Ukraine at the time — was no isolated event. As Ukraine's EuroMaidan Revolution evolved from a small protest movement to a full-blown uprising from late 2013 through the early months of 2014, Russia seized on the tense moment to sow unrest in the country.

From the outset of the revolution, the Russian-linked violent groups that would become known as the "AntiMaidan" began appearing at protests, both in Kyiv, the epicenter of the EuroMaidan, and in other cities across Ukraine, including Odesa, the eastern cities of Donetsk and Luhansk, and the northeastern city of Kharkiv.

Russia was found to be behind some of the AntiMaidan groups around the country, according to a PACE fact-finding mission in 2014.

The revolution reached a bloody climax in February 2014, when security forces backing pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych opened fire on protestors, killing over 100 people.

Yanukovych shortly thereafter fled to Russia, and Moscow quickly capitalized on the power vacuum by annexing Crimea and arming Russian-controlled proxy forces in Ukraine's eastern Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts.

Russia similarly tried to foment anti-government, Russia-sympathetic protest movements in Kharkiv and Odesa in the months after the revolution, but to little avail. Local activists formed civil defense groups that fought back against — at times violently — Russia's moves to recreate its success in Donetsk and Luhansk with the help of proxies and local collaborators.

Moscow's attempts in Odesa were not insignificant. The Kremlin had deployed its agents to undermine local authorities, backed street clashes, and fueled the spread of disinformation about the revolution. At the time, roughly 30% of Odesa's population identified as ethnic Russians. Some local officials also held sympathetic views toward Russia.

In an interview with Radio Svoboda, Serhii Dibrov, a Ukrainian reporter and expert from the public organization "The May 2 group," said the Russian consulate in Odesa was one of the biggest in the world, used as a getaway for Russian money lobbying its interests in the oblast through local political parties, media, and NGOs.

The European Court of Human Rights concluded in a 2025 ruling that pro-Russian activists in Odesa were aided by some local authorities and police during the attack on the rally.

The role of the local government in the day's events

During the clashes in Odesa on May 2, dozens of policemen were found to have stood idly by in a line with their backs to the attackers, enabling them to pull out firearms freely, the court ruled..

Some police even ignored the fact that protestors had been shot.

"A pro-Russian activist wearing a balaclava, who was standing behind and, at times, next to the police, was seen firing numerous shots in the direction of pro-unity supporters" around the time when the first pro-Ukrainian activist was shot, according to the ECHR investigation.

After the fires in the building started, the local State Emergency Service department ignored numerous calls to the building for about half an hour per their chief's order, who was present at the scene.

Instead of waiting for first responders to arrive at the scene of the fire, some activists jumped out of the building's windows. Others were evacuated with the help of activists outside.

After the fire was extinguished, the local police arrested sixty-three people who were still in the building.

Two days later, on May 4, several hundred pro-Russian activists stormed the local police building where the arrested protesters were held. The acting regional police chief, who helped the pro-Russian movement and subsequently fled to Russia, ordered their immediate release.

International observers found that Ukrainian authorities, many of whom were part of Yanukovych's pro-Russian Party of Regions, did little at the time to investigate the events and prosecute those responsible, partly explained by Ukraine's tumultuous transition after the revolution.

The ECHR ruled on March 13, 2025, that the Ukrainian government failed to prevent and properly investigate the deaths of 48 people in the clashes.

The court found that there was not enough conclusive evidence to prove that Russia had orchestrated the clashes — "especially given the covert nature of the alleged involvement." It acknowledged, however, Russia's involvement in instigating the violence through information warfare and, possibly, Russian-controlled saboteurs on the ground.

"The relevant (Ukrainian) authorities failed to show sufficient thoroughness and diligence in initiating and/or pursuing the investigations (of the clashes)," said a 2015 report of the International Advisory Panel of the Council of Europe cited by the court.

22
23
 
 

"American Extremists Aiding Radicals Across Border," trumpeted the Detroit Free Press in 1919. "707 Illegal Aliens Arrested in Checkpoint Crackdown," reported the Los Angeles Times in 1987. "87 Bronx gang members responsible for nine years of murders and drug-dealing charged in largest takedown in NYC history," announced the New York Daily News in 2016. "'Top secret' Hamas documents show that terrorists intentionally targeted elementary schools and a youth center," claimed NBC News in 2023.

Each of these headlines includes a label for a certain type of Bad Guy. Whether it’s the "Extremist," the "Illegal Alien," the "Gang Member," or the "Terrorist," these terms—and their cousins—seek to exceptionalize the alleged transgressions of their targets, separate them from both the law and history and dehumanize them, all while priming media audiences for crueler laws, harsher policing, longer incarceration and sometimes even extrajudicial punishment. The terms, of course, don’t have clear, universally accepted definitions—nor are they supposed to—their use is often heavily racialized and, by their very nature, subject to the whims and ideologies of the Security State and the media doing its bidding.

What effects, then, do these Bad Guy Labels have on public perceptions? How do they serve to foreclose critical thinking about who is deemed inside the bounds of due process and humanization and who is categorically an other in urgent need of disappearing and punishment?

On this episode, we examine four thought-terminating Bad Guy labels, analyze their origins, why they rose to prominence and explain how they are selectively evoked in order to turn off people’s brains and open up space for quick and cruel state violence.

Our guest is attorney and author Alec Karakatsanis.

24
 
 

Russia has used information warfare to promote its interests and undermine opponents across the world as a part of its foreign policy for decades.

The Russian state was spending an estimated $1.5 billion annually on its foreign disinformation campaigns, Christopher Walker, National Endowment for Democracy vice president for studies and analysis, told Congress in 2023.

These campaigns skillfully take advantage of already existing divisions in society, inflaming tensions to divide and destabilize countries around the world, according to experts.

In the U.S., the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) had acted as the main tool to expose Russia and China’s disinformation campaigns abroad since it was reformed in 2016.

But in 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration shut the center down, citing concerns about free speech and the rights of American citizens.

The Kyiv Independent spoke with James Rubin, a former diplomat who led the GEC for two years starting in 2022, about the consequences of Trump’s decision, as well as Russia’s continued information operations worldwide.

During Rubin’s tenure, the center, which focused exclusively on what Russia and China information campaigns outside of the U.S., exposed four major Russian disinformation operations around the world, including in Latin America, Africa, and Moldova.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The Kyiv Independent: How do Russia’s disinformation campaigns work?

James Rubin: Russian disinformation operations, or what we used to call covert operations, mean they're putting messages into the information system in Europe, in Ukraine, in Africa, that are lies and that are unattributed. They're hiding their hand.

The most important thing we did was last September, when we showed that the Russian television network RT and its parent company were a clearinghouse for covert intelligence operations in the information domain. Our highest intelligence director told me it was one of the most comprehensive intelligence downgrades.

Find out who's telling you something. Don't just believe it.

(The RT network) used its business model to do computer and cyber sweeps, where it would generate money for the Russian army. They used their cyber intelligence tools to suck up information. And they used Russian television all over the world to discredit any country that disagreed with them.

We exposed that with the help of our intelligence community. The most important thing we did was sanction RT’s parent company so that it could not use dollars anywhere in the world. It had a real impact. In my understanding, these sanctions are still in place under Trump's administration.

Russia's state-controlled Russia Today (RT) television broadcast van is parked in front of St. Basil's Cathedral and the Kremlin next to Red Square in Moscow, Russia, on March 16, 2018. (Mladen Antonov / AFP via Getty Images)

The lesson here for everyone is: find out who's telling you something. Don't just believe it. Wait and see who the source of the information is.

In (the United States), we got into a big debate about censorship. Who could say what, when? But the issue is not censoring information. It's providing more information. It's being sure that someone knows that it's the Kremlin apparatus that's coming up with these crazy ideas.

The Russians spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to skew the election in Moldova.

And they failed partly because European countries, the U.S., and the Moldovan government got together and shared information on what Russia was doing, who they were paying, and how they were using phony politicians to pay off local journalists who then put out phony information. They lost that election, which shows that we can beat them.

There's an information war going on around the world, led by the Russians, including the Chinese. But in the U.S., battling it is especially hard now that we've unilaterally disarmed one of our tools — the ability to expose Russian covert operations in the information domain.

The Kyiv Independent: With Russia spending nearly $1.5 billion annually on its foreign disinformation campaigns, how do you think the U.S. will fare in this disinformation war with Russia and China now that the center that countered it is shut down?

James Rubin: I think that number is low and that it's much more than that. It depends on how you count it and if you include all the facilities they created through RT, and you include all the people who are in the business.

I read a book called “Active Measures (:The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare” by Thomas Rid), which was about what the Soviet Union did with Eastern European countries during the Cold War.

(The authors of the book) were able to get real information because when the Cold War ended, the Eastern European countries opened their files and showed how much effort went into what were called “active measures," meaning forgeries or other covert operations in the information space.

Back in the 1970s, they were spending $4 billion (annually) on that program. It didn't go away. It just changed its location. It's changed its form.

So I think (Russia is spending) tens of billions of dollars all over the world (on disinformation).

The Kyiv Independent: What other goals does Russian disinformation pursue worldwide?

James Rubin: We learned that these people take information warfare very, very seriously. They wake up in the morning and they say: “OK, what can we do today, somewhere in the world, to undermine the U.S., undermine the West, undermine democratic institutions?”

They took this idea from the novel and tried to implant it into the minds of the people.

One of the things I was most proud of, in addition to (exposing the work of state-controlled) RT media, was what we did in Africa. It was particularly pernicious there because the Russians were going to create a phony argument, using an idea that came out of a John Le Carre novel, that biological weapons were being used on innocent Africans by the big pharmaceutical companies.

And so they took this idea from the novel and tried to implant it into the minds of the people in Africa, so that they wouldn't go to the Western medical centers and wouldn't use Western medicine. Then the U.S. and the West wouldn't get the so-called "soft power" benefit of helping the people of Africa. We were able to expose that before it took hold.

And that's the real lesson here — if we ever get serious again about the information war, you have to act early, ideally before the operation starts, but certainly in the first few days and weeks. Because once information takes hold, it's very hard to put it back into so-called Pandora's box.

By preventing Russia from doing that last year, we were able to convince Africans not to avoid Western medicine, but to take advantage of it. And we know that that has helped save lives.

I suspect they'll work in Latin America and try to play off the fact that President Trump is unpopular, and try to change people's minds about the war in Ukraine using President Trump's own arguments.

The real tragedy of it is that the Trump administration has accepted some of the arguments about who caused this war. Unfortunately, some in the Trump administration have used the arguments Putin and his friends use.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance delivers a speech at the 61st Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany, on Feb. 14, 2025. (Tobias Schwarz / AFP via Getty Images)

The cause of the war is in the Kremlin. But somehow, some people have persuaded other people that this war is somehow Ukraine's fault, the United States' fault, NATO's fault, although it was Vladimir Putin's choice to wake up one morning and invade his neighbor.

And I suspect Russia is going to try and spread those official American statements to try to change minds. Hopefully, the world has already made up its mind about whose fault the war is, and nothing anyone says is going to change the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine.

Read also: How US right-wing podcasters shape pro-Russia, anti-Ukraine sentiments

The Kyiv Independent: Speaking about official U.S. statements, would you agree that the Trump administration dismantled the Global Engagement Center (GEC) that you were leading, which helped expose Russian propaganda, in part because it currently aligns with some of the Russian statements?

James Rubin: I don't know exactly why they did this. But I can say that in the time I served in government, it was certainly true that some American congressmen would repeat Russian arguments. They would repeat Russian lies about Zelensky's yachts, or corruption in Ukraine, or biological weapons (allegedly developed in Ukraine with NATO to target Russia).

When we rejected those arguments as untrue, some in the Republican Party, I'm sorry to say, felt that we were censoring Americans who agreed with Russia.

Let me say this clearly: Americans have a right to agree with Russia.

Americans were being paid by Russia to promote the idea that instead of giving arms to Ukraine, we should be shutting down our southern border.

We don't control American points of view. But there's nothing wrong with telling people that it's also a Russian argument. And then people can decide for themselves whether the fact that they're repeating the argument of a country that invaded its neighbor is relevant.

I'm sure that one of the reasons they closed down these efforts to stop disinformation is because they began to feel that by opposing Russian information operations, we were somehow opposing the points of view of certain members of the Republican Party.

We found out that a group of Americans were being paid by Russia to promote the idea that instead of giving arms to Ukraine, we should be shutting down our southern border. Those arguments were actually used by members of Congress to delay aid to Ukraine.

Outside of my work in the State Department, I happen to know that Russia believes that these groups were serving effectively as useful idiots for Russian propaganda inside the U.S., persuading American congressmen to focus on immigration rather than aid to Ukraine.

It harmed the speed at which we were able to provide aid to Ukraine, when it took six to nine months under (former) President Joe Biden to get the military aid through Congress.

The Kyiv Independent: Within the U.S., what tools do you think Russia uses to influence the American public other than paying bloggers and influencers?

James Rubin: All sorts of social media, all sorts of communications tools are being deployed all over the world to try to undermine Western support for Ukraine.

Let's face it, it happens every day, because the only way Russia can win this war is if everyone quits. But with all the work they're doing, they failed to stop Western support for Ukraine.

25
view more: next ›