5 ms·

Disinformation is intentional. There is no evidence provided in the article that anything presented is disinformation. Guilt by tentative association seems to

by krona 6y ago

Disinformation is intentional. There is no evidence provided in the article that anything presented is disinformation. Guilt by tentative association seems to count as investigative journalism these days, but really it's just seeding a conspiracy.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Brexit and Trump-won were both driven by engines of disinformation. And there are plenty of other examples, from climate denial to examples that seem even more ridiculous today - like the smoking industry's campaign to pretend that smoking is safe and doesn't kill people. If you trace the links you'll see the same names, the same organisations, and the same funding sources appearing again and again. When someone lies consistently, it's irrational to conclude on the basis of no evidence at all that they've suddenly gone white hat and are now acting entirely in a public-spirited and wholly reputable way.
- exporectomy 6y ago
  > Brexit and Trump-won were both driven by engines of disinformation. Is that true or are you a victim of disinformation yourself? How do you know they would have lost had it not been for "engines of disinformation"? I'm not saying there wasn't disinformation used to promote them, but did they win because of it or despite it?
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Trump's 4 year term is a convincing argument that people realised they'd been lied to. As is the rolling up of the people who stormed the capitol over disinformation.
    - exporectomy 6y ago
      Not sure what you mean by that. I'm pointing out that we don't know either Trump or Brexit won because of disinformation, yet people keep saying they did. I think that's because they've been fooled by disinformation themselves. The news and social media gives them a general feeling of causation but in reality, it's just a correlation.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > Brexit and Trump-won were both driven by engines of disinformation. If by disinformation you mean leftist disinformation, then we can agree on that. Both were rational decisions by half the populations. Eurocrats are odious, and lower-income Americans need a wall. Stop pretending you speak for half the population - that's what elitism is, and when have American elitists ever been right about anything?

by krona 6y ago

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

Brexit and Trump-won were both driven by engines of disinformation. And there are plenty of other examples, from climate denial to examples that seem even more ridiculous today - like the smoking industry's campaign to pretend that smoking is safe and doesn't kill people. If you trace the links you'll see the same names, the same organisations, and the same funding sources appearing again and again. When someone lies consistently, it's irrational to conclude on the basis of no evidence at all that they've suddenly gone white hat and are now acting entirely in a public-spirited and wholly reputable way.

exporectomy 6y ago
> Brexit and Trump-won were both driven by engines of disinformation. Is that true or are you a victim of disinformation yourself? How do you know they would have lost had it not been for "engines of disinformation"? I'm not saying there wasn't disinformation used to promote them, but did they win because of it or despite it?
- pjc50 6y ago
  Trump's 4 year term is a convincing argument that people realised they'd been lied to. As is the rolling up of the people who stormed the capitol over disinformation.
  - exporectomy 6y ago
    Not sure what you mean by that. I'm pointing out that we don't know either Trump or Brexit won because of disinformation, yet people keep saying they did. I think that's because they've been fooled by disinformation themselves. The news and social media gives them a general feeling of causation but in reality, it's just a correlation.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Brexit and Trump-won were both driven by engines of disinformation. If by disinformation you mean leftist disinformation, then we can agree on that. Both were rational decisions by half the populations. Eurocrats are odious, and lower-income Americans need a wall. Stop pretending you speak for half the population - that's what elitism is, and when have American elitists ever been right about anything?