Fediverse vs Disinformation
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:
- No disinformation
- Posts must be relevant to the topic of astroturfing, propaganda and/or disinformation
Related websites
- EU vs Disinfo
- FactCheck.org
- PolitiFact
- Snopes
- Media Bias / Fact Check
- PEN America
- Media Matters
- FAIR
Matrix chat links
view the rest of the comments
We've been trying to tell yall for years. For anti capitalist? Socialists? All manners of leftists? Biggest enemy has always and will always be liberals.
Actually it's capital. But it's true that Liberalism is the wiggly fun-house slide to capitalism and fascism no doubt.
Liberalism is capitalism. They are intrinsically and indivisiblely linked. The liberal revolutions were capitalist revolutions.
He said capital, not capitalism. Aka, those with money.
Liberalism is defined by advocates of guaranteed human rights and freedoms so long as those freedoms don't infringe upon others'.
So, no, actually. None of the stuff you said.
And then liberals turn around and sell weapons they know will be used for genocide.
Not to mention the whole, you know, slavery thing.
The only rights liberalism cares about are private property rights.
Oh, you must be the new owner of Webster and Oxford dictionaries.
Check it out, guys! Its the dude who decides the meaning of words. Round of applause.
Sucks for them that they're PhDs and they still confuse words like Liberalism and Laissez Faire.
The dictionary definition has not changed, this is like calling China communist or the USSR socialist republic, or calling the US Republican Party... well, Republicans.
It's just propoganda made to appear in a slightly better light when in truth opposing liberalism is just opposing human rights.
So either multiple people with PhDs that have written extensively on the subject are correct and you didn't comprehend their point, or you, who failed to comprehend even the wiki page on Liberalism, know more.
It's pretty obvious which is the case when you read through the article, even more so when you read when laissez faire is mentioned multiple times.
I have you tagged as a Zionist from previous conversations, you got no say on the concept of human rights when you've repeatedly defended that type of fascism in the past.
"The dictionary definition has not changed, this is like calling China communist or the USSR socialist republic, or calling the US Republican Party… well, Republicans."
Yeah, I mean you're here stomping your feet over semantics by leaning on a dictionary definition rather than acknowledging that all your criticisms of other political systems absolutely applies to your defense of Liberalism. In so far as we're existing only in theory, the things you said about Liberalism are true (according to the source that you didn't cite), but in the actual world and as applied through history, Liberalism simply isn't what that definition claims anymore, or Liberals aren't Liberals despite their claims. Both can be true.
P.S. you're bad at this defense thing.
This is really more neo-liberalism. Classical liberalism is pretty much just "capitalism > kings".
I mean, I definitely wouldn't ally myself with Kings, which is unfortunately a nonironic stance of modern conservative parties like the CCP and GOP.
which political establishment just passed legislation to obliterate the social safety net
Yes liberals who are simultaneously all-powerful and weak.
I believe they are using it in the sense of economic liberalism. What today we just call capitalism. Encompassing Republicans, national Democratic leadership, and those that larp as anarchist or libertarian while being capitalist.
Libertarians are capitalists who hate the state and like drugs.
So just capitalists really.
libertarians are republicans who got tired of being taken seriously.
A libertarian is a man who can throw a dart at a map and tell you the age of consent where it lands. His eyes light up if it lands in international waters.
Uh no. There’s such a thing as left libertarians. People who recognize that the government can never be of the people from the people, therefore the governments power should be limited as much as possible. Before you say that’s anarchism, anarchists are imo a different breed because of their “end game”, though I might convert to anarchism once one of them comes up with a description of what a classless stateless society looks like and how it will be different than what chimps have right now.
No there are no left libertarians just people lying to themselves about how right they actually are.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
If you could back that up with an actual argument, we can cook something.
I for one don’t really care where on the spectrum I’m perceived to be, generally I think I’m dead center simply because I like to look at what nets the greatest benefit instead of asking myself whether the policy aligns better with right or left wing discourse. I happen to believe that the government having the least amount of power needed to fulfill their role is a good thing and that curbing the vices of capitalism is also a good thing. So left libertarian is the best label for me.
I’ve made my argument already but tell me how a libertarian curbs the vices of capitalism because that’s the hypocrisy I’m talking about right there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
The problem is lumping all libertarians together as if they are all the same thing. Are all socialists the same thing? Should I lump tankies with social democrats?
Libertarianism is simply being aware that the government will exploit their authority over the individual, so it is best that it has as little capacity to do so as possible. That says nothing about the economical system in which a state operates. Although in my idea, yes it is still capitalistic (though with greater worker ownership, social nets and some wealth redistribution) because imo capitalism is not inherently bad, it’s a tool and we can wield it to our benefit. For proof look how easily it adapts to all conditions: it works when there’s totalitarianism, in democracies, in monarchies and even in anarchy and in collapsed states.
But one can argue for curbing state power over the individual while at the same time advocating for the interest of the individual (which so often are the interest of the collective ) above corporate interests. You’ll find few sane libertarians who think we should let corporations dump toxic waste everywhere, just to give an example.
See now we’re speaking the same language.
Make Actual arguments with claims. Not attacking people simply because you don’t like their view.
I’ve already made my argument.