9 ms·

Sorry but what? * It looks like there won't be a Ukrainian government to speak of in a few days. * Manipulative behaviour has been identified on twitter and F

Sorry but what? * It looks like there won't be a Ukrainian government to speak of in a few days. * Manipulative behaviour has been identified on twitter and Facebook almost every day for the last few years, and it hasn't really led to much anything. The Ukrainian government can't do anything about that, if the independent banana republics of FAANG don't decide to act, nothing is gonna change. * Likewise for patreon. It's a private Company and thus sadly, regrettably, out of reach of public scrutiny or regulation. Thoughts and prayers are free and abundant though! Besides, what is the Ukrainian government gonna do with money right now? I bet tanks and air defense systems have long lead times these days, chip shortage and all. Sorry for the overboarding sarkasm... I guess. But these are my points. Edit: Collecting downvotes for that. Not surprised, but I'm not seeing any counterpoints, really. It's okay if you just need a valve to let off your frustration, have at it, but what the parent suggested seems.... pointless, sorry to be blank. I mean, this sort of soft influence might be useful, but we ("the west") have been proving, on an ongoing basis, for multiple years now, that corporate decisions shall not and will not be questioned by our governments, that essentially an american-based platform has unbridled control over what they want to do, and that if they don't care about trolls and bots and harassment and nationalism andandand then there's not much "we" (read: the government, first of all the US government) can^Wwill do. What is the ukraininan government gonna do with more intel on russian propaganda? What's the actionable on that? Start a war with twitter? As for the first point. Yeah... I don't see the mechanism by which any of this will slow down the physical process of soldiers marching on Kyiv. No NATO state will enter into this conflict, Putin has been pretty openly threatening with nuclear annihilation. And I would doubt that the russian soldiers will be hanging out on twitter enough to really get distracted by some well thought-through anti-propaganda measures.

glogla 5y ago
I'm guessing you're getting downvoted for aggresive tone. But you are right that social media networks are strong enablers of evil and helpers to enemies of freedom and democracy. Facebook and Twitter could easily stop (almost) all the misinformation and propaganda, but they don't because it makes them money.
- thesz 5y ago
  What you consider misinformation and propaganda I may consider valuable vantage points. I also should point that any defense of the freedom of speech also defends freedom of misinformation and propaganda.
  - watwut 5y ago
    > What you consider misinformation and propaganda I may consider valuable vantage points. If they are actual misinformation and propaganda and you are unwilling to even admit existence of that category, then you yourself are threat to freedom - of speech or otherwise. > I also should point that any defense of the freedom of speech also defends freedom of misinformation and propaganda. Nah. Defenders of free speech not being willing to criticize misinformation and propaganda, calling those "valuable vantage points" and being quick to criticize and attempt to shut up criticism of those is what is dangerous for free speech. Pointing out misinformation and propaganda as such is a good thing.
    - glogla 5y ago
      I agree, drowning out normal voices in fake news and bots is as much censorship as banning them outright - it is just a form of censorship that (some) free speech advocates are complicit with. But the biggest issue in my mind is that fake news, misinformation and bot bullying makes social media money, so they are never going to stop it.
      - thesz 5y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqDZlAZygU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqDZlAZygU "The answer to the speech is... more speech" And I agree that this is exactly the problem - winners are who have more energy and opportunity to speak. "Drowning the voices" as you pointed out. But, how to determine which voice is normal? Per your suspicion that fake news and misinformation make money, fact checking is alleged to make money to Facebook and fact-checking Facebook affiliates. The links on fact checking materials divert viewers from one arrticles to other and increase clicks and retention at Facebook. Yes, you are right again - misinformation may bring money to FB, at the very least, when FB tries to fight it. I guess it is a nature of capitalism, to try to make money out of everything.
mapcars 5y ago
>* It looks like there won't be a Ukrainian government to speak of in a few days. Do you know the future for 100%? If not doesn't it worth a try?
- ukrleut 5y ago
  It's the same "into Kyiv in two weeks" narrative for last 8 years.
  - TrickardRixx 5y ago
    Surely you agree that the situation today is quite different than it has been in the last 8 years?
reitanqild 5y ago
You are probably downvoted for - voluntarily or involuntarily (I cannot judge) - running the errands of the enemies of the free world by suggesting that it is hopeless while it is absolutely not. (Why is it not hopeless? Russian forces suffer large losses and their morale is breaking, after all, what sane person wants to shoot their peaceful neigbours and relatives? Russians are already taking to the streets to protest the madness one day into this stupid war, who would have expected such bravery from the already suffering Russian people? Half of the European population is already looking for anything they can do to support Ukraine, ordinary Russians raising up or to make Putin and his closest people suffer. Pro Russian trolls who were previously tolerated since we wanted to hear all sides are now kept down. The list probably goes on.) Every free human is now at war, and for now, for us it is information warfare. So lets make sure the madmen get nothing for free. Don't run their errands.
- Loic 5y ago
  The most important part in what you wrote: > no sane person wants to shoot their peaceful neighbors and relatives and this is the case for all Russians even most of the ones in the army in Ukraine, right now. People do not want war. Period. For a human being to go to war, he/she needs to be heavily indoctrinated to the point of partially losing is normal references. Even today, with heavily indoctrinated armies, only a small subset of the forces are effectively shooting bullets. War is decided by crazy leaders (and I am polite) far away from the lines.
  - reitanqild 5y ago
    Luckily this also favours the defending side somewhat I hope: From listening to people who grew up with the veterans here in Norway I've learned that: - Germans were told they came here to protect us against the British so they would - in the beginning of the war - shoot to suppress, not to kill. I guess Russian soldiers coming into Ukraine has been tricked to believe the "peace keeping" nonsense too and had a rude awakening. - Norwegians however were already mad and shot to kill. I guess this holds true for Ukrainians too. This is natural and we've seen it in Afghanistan, Iraq etc too I think. - German soldiers would cryingly admit to POWs already at the start of the war that they were absolutely not voluntarily there, they'd just be shot if they refused.
irthomasthomas 5y ago
I can't understand how chaps like Mendelev are welcome on Twitter, but the president is permanently suspended. (Orwellian phrasing, too)
- throwaway69123 5y ago
  I’m sure you could work out why Twitter suppressors speech that the deem effects them as Americans doing that overseas would just cost them money
Aeolun 5y ago
> It looks like there won't be a Ukrainian government to speak of in a few days. I don’t see why this would be true. The legitimate government doesn’t have to be in kiev to coordinate the defense of the country.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  But an illegitimate government can be installed fairly easily in Kiev instead.
  - cloverich 5y ago
    And the legitimate government can operate in exile, ready to return if it becomes viable. Inusrgents fighting on their behalf could coordinate with them. I'm very out of my depth but it seems like this must be a common scenario, particularly when the displaced government is legitimate.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    Certainly, but that is fairly pointless if the existing government still controls 90% of the country. I think the psychological effect of losing Kiev would be much lower if they planned on that from the start too, but I guess that bird has flown.
idkwhoiam 5y ago
> No NATO state will enter into this conflict, Putin has been pretty openly threatening with nuclear annihilation This basically means 2 things: 1. NATO is dead. 2. Putin is free to do whatever he wants wherever he chooses.
- thomaslangston 5y ago
  Neither of those points follow from the premise. NATO's mission has always been mutual defense of members. Ukraine is not a member. The threat of Russian nuclear weapons has been more poignant in the past than today. Neither of your conclusions was true before.
  - idkwhoiam 5y ago
    "Ukraine made the decision to completely denuclearize. In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine's security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum." [0] We can see this security guarantee in action right now. Same will happen with NATO's mutual defense guarantee. [0] https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-put...
- joshgachnang 5y ago
  I don’t know how that means NATO is dead. Ukraine is (unfortunately for them at this moment) not a part of NATO, so the response is different. If Russia continues and invades Lithuania, etc, the rest of the countries are obligated to defend it.
black_puppydog 5y ago
Wow, I guess it's hat-eating time. Glad to see they are holding up much better than I anticipated. I mean, not surprising that I'd be way off-base, given that I know jack shit about all of this.

glogla 5y ago

I'm guessing you're getting downvoted for aggresive tone. But you are right that social media networks are strong enablers of evil and helpers to enemies of freedom and democracy. Facebook and Twitter could easily stop (almost) all the misinformation and propaganda, but they don't because it makes them money.

thesz 5y ago
What you consider misinformation and propaganda I may consider valuable vantage points. I also should point that any defense of the freedom of speech also defends freedom of misinformation and propaganda.
- watwut 5y ago
  > What you consider misinformation and propaganda I may consider valuable vantage points. If they are actual misinformation and propaganda and you are unwilling to even admit existence of that category, then you yourself are threat to freedom - of speech or otherwise. > I also should point that any defense of the freedom of speech also defends freedom of misinformation and propaganda. Nah. Defenders of free speech not being willing to criticize misinformation and propaganda, calling those "valuable vantage points" and being quick to criticize and attempt to shut up criticism of those is what is dangerous for free speech. Pointing out misinformation and propaganda as such is a good thing.
  - glogla 5y ago
    I agree, drowning out normal voices in fake news and bots is as much censorship as banning them outright - it is just a form of censorship that (some) free speech advocates are complicit with. But the biggest issue in my mind is that fake news, misinformation and bot bullying makes social media money, so they are never going to stop it.
    - thesz 5y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqDZlAZygU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqDZlAZygU "The answer to the speech is... more speech" And I agree that this is exactly the problem - winners are who have more energy and opportunity to speak. "Drowning the voices" as you pointed out. But, how to determine which voice is normal? Per your suspicion that fake news and misinformation make money, fact checking is alleged to make money to Facebook and fact-checking Facebook affiliates. The links on fact checking materials divert viewers from one arrticles to other and increase clicks and retention at Facebook. Yes, you are right again - misinformation may bring money to FB, at the very least, when FB tries to fight it. I guess it is a nature of capitalism, to try to make money out of everything.

mapcars 5y ago

>* It looks like there won't be a Ukrainian government to speak of in a few days. Do you know the future for 100%? If not doesn't it worth a try?

ukrleut 5y ago
It's the same "into Kyiv in two weeks" narrative for last 8 years.
- TrickardRixx 5y ago
  Surely you agree that the situation today is quite different than it has been in the last 8 years?

reitanqild 5y ago

You are probably downvoted for - voluntarily or involuntarily (I cannot judge) - running the errands of the enemies of the free world by suggesting that it is hopeless while it is absolutely not. (Why is it not hopeless? Russian forces suffer large losses and their morale is breaking, after all, what sane person wants to shoot their peaceful neigbours and relatives? Russians are already taking to the streets to protest the madness one day into this stupid war, who would have expected such bravery from the already suffering Russian people? Half of the European population is already looking for anything they can do to support Ukraine, ordinary Russians raising up or to make Putin and his closest people suffer. Pro Russian trolls who were previously tolerated since we wanted to hear all sides are now kept down. The list probably goes on.) Every free human is now at war, and for now, for us it is information warfare. So lets make sure the madmen get nothing for free. Don't run their errands.

Loic 5y ago
The most important part in what you wrote: > no sane person wants to shoot their peaceful neighbors and relatives and this is the case for all Russians even most of the ones in the army in Ukraine, right now. People do not want war. Period. For a human being to go to war, he/she needs to be heavily indoctrinated to the point of partially losing is normal references. Even today, with heavily indoctrinated armies, only a small subset of the forces are effectively shooting bullets. War is decided by crazy leaders (and I am polite) far away from the lines.
- reitanqild 5y ago
  Luckily this also favours the defending side somewhat I hope: From listening to people who grew up with the veterans here in Norway I've learned that: - Germans were told they came here to protect us against the British so they would - in the beginning of the war - shoot to suppress, not to kill. I guess Russian soldiers coming into Ukraine has been tricked to believe the "peace keeping" nonsense too and had a rude awakening. - Norwegians however were already mad and shot to kill. I guess this holds true for Ukrainians too. This is natural and we've seen it in Afghanistan, Iraq etc too I think. - German soldiers would cryingly admit to POWs already at the start of the war that they were absolutely not voluntarily there, they'd just be shot if they refused.

irthomasthomas 5y ago

I can't understand how chaps like Mendelev are welcome on Twitter, but the president is permanently suspended. (Orwellian phrasing, too)

throwaway69123 5y ago
I’m sure you could work out why Twitter suppressors speech that the deem effects them as Americans doing that overseas would just cost them money

Aeolun 5y ago

> It looks like there won't be a Ukrainian government to speak of in a few days. I don’t see why this would be true. The legitimate government doesn’t have to be in kiev to coordinate the defense of the country.

selfhoster11 5y ago
But an illegitimate government can be installed fairly easily in Kiev instead.
- cloverich 5y ago
  And the legitimate government can operate in exile, ready to return if it becomes viable. Inusrgents fighting on their behalf could coordinate with them. I'm very out of my depth but it seems like this must be a common scenario, particularly when the displaced government is legitimate.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  Certainly, but that is fairly pointless if the existing government still controls 90% of the country. I think the psychological effect of losing Kiev would be much lower if they planned on that from the start too, but I guess that bird has flown.

idkwhoiam 5y ago

> No NATO state will enter into this conflict, Putin has been pretty openly threatening with nuclear annihilation This basically means 2 things: 1. NATO is dead. 2. Putin is free to do whatever he wants wherever he chooses.

thomaslangston 5y ago
Neither of those points follow from the premise. NATO's mission has always been mutual defense of members. Ukraine is not a member. The threat of Russian nuclear weapons has been more poignant in the past than today. Neither of your conclusions was true before.
- idkwhoiam 5y ago
  "Ukraine made the decision to completely denuclearize. In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine's security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum." [0] We can see this security guarantee in action right now. Same will happen with NATO's mutual defense guarantee. [0] https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-put...
joshgachnang 5y ago
I don’t know how that means NATO is dead. Ukraine is (unfortunately for them at this moment) not a part of NATO, so the response is different. If Russia continues and invades Lithuania, etc, the rest of the countries are obligated to defend it.

black_puppydog 5y ago

Wow, I guess it's hat-eating time. Glad to see they are holding up much better than I anticipated. I mean, not surprising that I'd be way off-base, given that I know jack shit about all of this.