this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
166 points (100.0% liked)

Fediverse vs Disinformation

1521 readers
67 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 days ago (2 children)

WSJ is just rich people propaganda.

[–] FundMECFS@quokk.au 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Same as Economist and Financial Times

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago

Actually, forbes is so bad I want to mention this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/prakashdolsak/2023/05/01/why-blowing-up-pipelines-will-not-solve-the-climate-crisis/?ctpv=searchpage
It's clearly written by a guy who didn't read the book.

One of the first points made is that the public doesn't support disruption. No shit, I don't think people supported the suffragettes' disruption, but that got women their rights.

Some might argue that violence against property is different from violence against people, and property violence against corporations is different from say burning down the home of an individual. We disagree. The modern corporation’s functional logic is to pool resources from shareholders (both individuals and institutional investors such as pension funds) and use them to run a business. Eventually, violence against corporations is an attack on the livelihood and financial security of people whose assets the corporation manages.

Won't someone please think of the poor shareholders!

The risk-return trade-off is a part of the bargain shareholders strike with corporations. And if shareholders consider corporate actions or inaction to be harmful, they can use economic and legal mechanisms such as shareholders’ vote or even divest.

One problem with this, the shareholders make money from harmful actions, and actively encourage them.

What if property violence against corporations hurts the livelihood of impoverished communities? There is widespread poverty in many fossil fuel communities. They often view climate change as an elite issue favored by a predominantly urban climate movement. Might these communities view violence against fossil fuel infrastructure as an attack on their livelihood—on their very existence?

Even lesser actions such as transportation disruption can invite a backlash from affected parties. Consider the incident in London in 2019: “as XR began a second two-week mass mobilization in London, one local branch staged an action in Canning Town, a predominantly Black and Asian working-class neighborhood, in which several XR members clambered onto a subway car, preventing the train from leaving. Commuters dragged the protesters down onto the platform and beat them.”

These points show nothing except that the writer didn't read the book. The XR train protest was severly critised by the author, and the author addresses poorer people who depend on fossil fuels.

This is all very fitting, because the author of the book calls forbes a billionaire rag in the book.

Listening to the FT's podcast Swamp Notes was infuriating. I get who your audience is, but if you're going to have the guy from the center right think tank on and the establishment technocratic reporter talking with him, at least have some progressive on to defend his views.

The worst part is how they infantalize him and his views.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Even more sad, its more of an apsirationally, i see myself as a rich business person, oriented propoganda.

Its for wannabes and the low to mid level management crowd, small business owners who like to pretend they understand economics beyond 'underpay my workers'.

WSJ readers are basically the people who watch SqwuakBox and Jim Cramer...

Actually clever rich people may read the WSJ from time to time, but they're gonna be spending more time reading esoteric industry specific journals, following the actual appearances and conferences of the people who the WSJ writes about, to make actual investment and business strategies with.

[–] Novocirab@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Reminds me of this, though:

Education is Ignorance Noam Chomsky Excerpted from Class Warfare, 1995, pp. 19-23, 27-31

… Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis, two economists, in their work on the American educational system some years back… pointed out that the educational system is divided into fragments. The part that’s directed toward working people and the general population is indeed designed to impose obedience. But the education for elites can’t quite do that. It has to allow creativity and independence. Otherwise they won’t be able to do their job of making money. You find the same thing in the press. That’s why I read the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times and Business Week. They just have to tell the truth. That’s a contradiction in the mainstream press, too. Take, say, the New York Times or the Washington Post. They have dual functions and they’re contradictory. One function is to subdue the great beast. But another function is to let their audience, which is an elite audience, gain a tolerably realistic picture of what’s going on in the world. Otherwise, they won’t be able to satisfy their own needs. That’s a contradiction that runs right through the educational system as well. It’s totally independent of another factor, namely just professional integrity, which a lot of people have: honesty, no matter what the external constraints are. That leads to various complexities. If you really look at the details of how the newspapers work, you find these contradictions and problems playing themselves out in complicated ways….

https://chomsky.info/warfare02/

WSJ changed a lot since then?

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

So for starters, I agree with Chomsky broadly here, he isn't wrong that... its good to keep up on what a class or segment of people read if you want to know how their brains work, how they think, what they often do not even realize they hold as unchallengeable beliefs... and that when you're in a cultural (?) space for corpos, you get to see what they're actually worried about, vs what they project outward to a more general, mass audience.

To specifically answer your question:

No, it hasn't changed that much.

WSJ, FT, The Economist...

yeah, they're all generally in that same boat, I am just telling you as a former corpo, former executive level data analyst, that most of what is in those is basically just the bougie version of a gossip rag, lifestyle pieces.

A bougie lifestyle piece just is the latest 'enlightened' perspective to have on monetary nterest rate policy or whatever.

Its like Patrick Bateman.

Most of them don't really care, beyond perfecting the brand that is their own corporate persona.

The people that actually know what they are talking about may yes, read these occasionally, semi-regularly, just to generally keep abreast of things, but the really powerful data and announcements are in industry journals, and most of the time, the really important conversations and missives are not publicly available.

If you have access to or know how to read those, you have a 90% chancd of knowing what the FT, WSJ, and Economist are going to be talking about in 6 weeks to 6 months.

[–] Novocirab@feddit.org 2 points 18 hours ago

That's very interesting, thanks