this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
489 points (97.3% liked)
Fediverse vs Disinformation
1743 readers
316 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:
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes. If a Rwandese government spokesperson said the same thing about Rwandese military killing a Reuters journalist in eastern Kivu, Reuters would not quote their statement as "initial inquiry says". And likewise if China said the same thing about Chinese military killing a Reuters journalist in Xinyang province.
Reuters would be skeptical towards a genocidal regime with a long history of lying to Reuters if that genocidal regime wasn't in NATO. It would clarify who was doing the inquiry just to remind readers and journalists buying the story off them that that organisation is not to be trusted.
Headlines are compact. Their words are carefully chosen. Leaving out who is doing the inquiry is as much of a statement as any other word choice. Anyone who reads headlines understands that leaving it out means the inquiry is being done by a relatively trusted institution.
But yeah, of course it's "hardly misinformation". That's how all good propaganda works. If a news source lies to you, you're better off not reading it. But if it tells you truths in a misleading way, then maybe the truth can empower you more than the misleadingness can harm you...
What about when nearly the exact same thing happened and they reported it was baseless?
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/idf-confirms-killing-al-jazeera-journalist-says-he-was-hamas-operative-2024-08-01/
Or when one of their staff was killed by Russia, but they couldn't confirm ukranian statements that it was a Russian missile so they reported the ukranian statement and made it clear that the could not confirm if it was Russia or if it was deliberate?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/reuters-staff-hit-strike-hotel-ukraines-kramatorsk-2024-08-25/
I'm incredulous that Reuters should be categorized as Israeli propaganda because one headline, clarified shortly after publication, is accurate but lacking an explicit source.
That's why getting your news from a screen shot of a screenshot of Twitter isn't a good idea. A new source can correct or clarify a headline, but the screenshot is forever.
Also, Israel isn't in NATO. I'm not sure if you meant that as another caveat but it sounded like you were saying they were.
Should I dismiss your comment as misinformation because it appears you implied that Israel was in NATO?