this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
196 points (98.0% liked)

Canada

9980 readers
491 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 89 points 3 months ago (1 children)

X is an intentional misinformation pipeline.

Block X nationally.

[–] SamuelRJankis@sh.itjust.works 24 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I don't mind blocking them as something to do today but society really needs to figure out what they want to do with this stuff long term.

From a user level I believe having a Adblock type shared lists that block crappy accounts like the one circulates this stuff would be pretty nice.

[–] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The type of people who understand and will use (collaboratively or otherwise) the tools available to proactively filter what information reaches them are going to generally fall into two categories:

  • people who are not particularly susceptible to misinformation
  • people already captured by misinformation (who will use such tools to help avoid cognitive dissonance, usually with block lists curated by their thought leaders)

I think the misinformation problem is, at it's root, a shortage of trust in institutions (fueled partly by actual failures, but more by deliberate attacks). As such, there is no systemic solution that people who most need it won't go to great lengths to circumvent. But combatting misinformation is a numbers game, and the largest number of vulnerable citizens are low-information voters who are not particularly radicalized but simply react to whatever reaches them with far too little skepticism.

For them, I think some simple, low level and easily circumvented internet filtering would do a world of good. Like just have our ISPs serve up DNS redirects to government-hosted pages proclaiming the site is blocked and detailing why, with links to things like private, non-partisan analysis as supporting evidence. Circumventing this is trivial, but the initial hurdle is good enough to redirect a sizeable amount of low-information, unmotivated users somewhere more productive or at least better moderated. It's also weak enough to minimize the inevitable complaints about censorship.

I don't like censorship myself, but I'm past believing we can maintain national security with none at all. People who are reasonably well-informed are finding their collective future just as threatened as the low-information voters inviting foreign influence through the back door.

[–] SamuelRJankis@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

For the Adblock users portion I'm merely saying if people didn't want to see ads because it diminished their web browsing experience the user generated content could be handled the same.

Even going away from the misinformation discussion some people are just cunts and provide little value to begin with. So I'm happy to be done with them at least on the internet.

[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Someone posted an article here today that China is suggesting that anything AI generated must be watermarked, visually and digitally, somehow.

I don't know how technically feasible that would be, but sounds like something that needs to happen.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

"The plan is to pave over the area and move on with our lives."

[–] hOrni@lemmy.world 45 points 3 months ago

Ya know whose photos with Epstein aren't fake?

[–] ahal@lemmy.ca 32 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  1. Lol, they didn't even remove the watermark.
  2. Why throw Tom Hanks under the bus?
[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 35 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Tom Hanks has been vocally anti Trump

[–] SHBI7368@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

Only once he thought j6 was a bad look

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

Why throw Tom Hanks under the bus?

He’s a democrat.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 months ago

It's real unfortunate, but bad actors like this will be dime-a-dozen for most of this year, especially when it comes to using Carney as the subject. And I fear no amount of warnings and corrections will make a serious dent on fixing it.

What should be done instead is flooding the internet with fake pictures of PP that are technically impossible, but so real that people can't distinguish them as being fake without examination. For example, having him shake hands with Hitler, or bumping shoulders with Bush Jr under the Mission Accomplished banner on the Enterprise.

Force people to become acutely aware that any picture, no matter how perfect and realistic, can be fake. Make them doubt their senses and think that there are so many fake pictures, it's actually less likely to find real pictures than fake ones on disinformation platforms like X.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 8 points 3 months ago

Do we have a thispersondoesnotexists-like website for generating photos of random people on Epstein island yet?

[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

That fake picture looks more like Michael Keaton anyway.