False and misleading posts about the Ukraine conflict continue to go viral on major social media platforms, as Russia’s invasion of the country extends beyond 500 days.
That blue checkmark is literally an indication of something that should be ignored.
What’s fascinating is for those of us somewhere in the centre, the blue tick has gone from representing mad ideas on one side of the spectrum to mad ideas on the other end without ever hitting the penumbra of sensibility.
Thinking official organizations, companies, newspapers, celebrities and other well known people being as mad on one side of the spectrum, as what we currently have, is not a centrist view.
Full BBC article here, with the properly fact checked examples.
Contacted by BBC Verify for a response to the false and misleading Twitter Blue posts highlighted in this article, Twitter’s press office acknowledged receipt of our enquiry, but declined to comment.
An interesting variation on the obligatory “automated poop emoji” disclaimer
Weird. I thought I had the article posted. Thanks for doing that.
No worries. It confused me at first, thought I was just struggling to see a link. But I’d read it a few minutes before anyway and thought it was a good article and worthy of a share.
Now, this is odd. Perhaps it’s a bug in Lemmy? I’m reading this post on kbin (here’s the link to it on kbin.social, you can look without an account) and @Some_Emo_Chick’s original post has the link just fine, it’s the header link as you’d expect. If I go over to lemmy.world and view the same post, the header link instead points to a webp thumbnail from the article, hosted on lemmy.world itself. This seems to mean that the correct link was posted, since it’s what we got on kbin, but Lemmy fumbled somewhere and replaced it with the thumbnail.
It’s depressing seeing the shit that people will believe. I’ve immersed myself in learning about conspiratorial thinking and still never stop being surprised at the dumb shit people believe. I mean, stuff that just defies imagination (baby factories being the example in this article).
I think religion is the primary common thread. People who believe fantastical stories start somewhere and I think it’s the christian bible.
Oh look, the town square can be bought. Some are more equal than others.
surprised pickachu is surprised
who decides that something is disinformation? NATO high command?
Reality.
It it me or have we seen a huge influx of Russian apologists on this community in the last few days? I’m not sure if they’re tankies or the right as horseshoe is in full effect right now but it’s a bit concerning how they’re coming out the woodwork all of a sudden. I guess they could just be Russian troll farms following the audience to a new space?
Almost guaranteed to be trolls, paid or of the useful idiot variety. I’ve seen them for the last week or so, as Lemmy got big enough to be on their radar now.
Here’s a rundown on how paid trolls operate. They have quotas of thousands of posts per day each:
https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-troll-slayer-went-undercover-at-a-troll-factory-2019-3?IR=TYou may have noticed some familiar names in the article. It’s also worth mentioning that China’s 50 cent army is estimated at making 400 million+ posts per year, and that Harvard estimate was from something like 2016. Common sense solution, if it smells like a rat, treat it like a rat until proven otherwise.
You know you’ve hit the big times when the russian trolls show up.
I would not be surprised.
its tankies
please stop using this stupid and derogatory term. There are many kinds of leftists that try to make a nuanced analysis of past socialist experiments. While I consider myself a leftist who takes kindly to socialist countries past trials and tribulations, I for one can’t fathom why so many marxists choose to support a reactionary regime that frequently flirts with fascism. Still, the word “tankie” is just a strawman that liberals use to shame leftists that dare to conduct real analysis of socialist history. It has lost all meaning and nowadays stands as the liberal version of “woke”.
- im not a liberal
- im clearly not using ‘tankie’ to shame leftists that dare to conduct real analyses of socialist history, im clearly using it to shame leftists who choose to support a reactionary regime that frequently flirts with fascism
- it has plenty of meaning, thats why you felt the need to talk about not understanding many Marxists’ support of a reactionary regime that frequently flirts with fascism
- no
okay we might agree with most stuff but c’mon u know that silly libs always use that term to shut up discourse on marxist’s perspectives. we might be in the know but it’s confusing to most people
with the conversation being about support for russia i figure contextll clue folks in
Those of us who don’t live in the western world take a different view of world events. It does not make us trolls.
For example, when the NordStream exploded, we were told that Russia did it. It was considered disinformation by the western authorities to question this. It turned out a year later it was a group of Ukrainians.
Why are you just making things up and spreading misinformation?
Here is the original BBC News coverage from the time (unedited, you can check on the Wayback machine).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63297085
Western leaders have stopped short of directly accusing Russia but the EU has previously accused Russia of using its gas supplies as a weapon against the West over its support for Ukraine.
Meanwhile UKrainian involvement you cite as a fact, is from a NY Times article quoting US intelliegence sources. It’s possibly true but has never been stood-up
German government knew that Ukrainians blew it up.
Western media pushed the narrative that Russia blew up NordStream because it fit their prejudices.
Here’s misinformation for you.
Fronm anyone interested in the sources, that screenshot is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage
It does not support the fact that the factthe “German government knew” anything - rather that there was a police investigation into evidence. Once again “Western Media” is a broad brush, but the coverage I see at the time certainly explored the idea that the Russians may have destoyed the pipeline as one possibility - at the same time point out that there was uncertainty. This is not “pushing a narrative” particularly - it’s trying to explain a mystery.
As a wise person once said: “things are usually not as black and white. People who complain about misinformation/disinformation are usually guilty of it themselves.”
Western media pushed “Russia destroyed Nordstream” narrative to generate support for the war in Europe. There was never any reason to think that Russia would destroy their own pipeline. People who thought otherwise are gullible people that were misled by a very successful misinformation campaign.
Which are these Western Media that pushed it as an undisputed fact? Can you give any mainstream examples?
Pretty sure it talks about misinformation, which is not factually accurate information.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MisinformationSo, nobody decides.
It’s not factually accurate, so it’s misinformation.
It’s like asking “when something is covered in water, who decides that it is wet?”. The majority of the time, the item is going to be wet.Disinformation is deliberate misinformation.
Proving something is misinformation is likely trivial compared to proving a malicious or deliberate intent behind presenting the misinformation (thus making it disinformation).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation
But disinformation is just pointing the finger at someone over misinformation.
Clearing up misinformation will hamper any disinformation campaign.Things are usually not as black and white. People who complain about misinformation/disinformation are usually guilty of it themselves.
Oh, how convenient for you!
Lol, it’s adorable how many people think NATO has any control over global news networks. It kind of flattering that you think the west is that much more powerful than the rest of the world
Do you not believe in objective reality?
I believe in objective reality. I don’t believe in giving someone the authority to decide what objective reality is.
So you don’t believe in science? Peer-reviewed studies? It’s only valid if you make the hypotheses, and do the experiments yourself?
How much of what you follow on the news follows the scientific process?
I do believe in science. But I also believe that humans will lie and distort the truth when it suits their purpose.
So you do believe in giving someone the authority to “decide” (or really just tell you) what objective reality is. But, what, only when the thing they tell you comports with your previous understanding of that reality?
Let me put this in simpler language you’ll understand: I don’t think it is a good idea to empower the government, or some corporation to be the arbiter of what the truth is. Because they will inevitably abuse this power.
It does not mean I reject the concept of objective reality, or our ability to learn it.
I can’t take someone who is against all government regulations seriously.
