5 ms·

I'm fairly certain that /r/worldnews is gamed by western intelligence and diplomatic agencies. The top stories and top comments on said stories are invariably t

by K7PJP 5y ago

I'm fairly certain that /r/worldnews is gamed by western intelligence and diplomatic agencies. The top stories and top comments on said stories are invariably towing the US State Department line.

woodruffw 5y ago
All things being equal, this doesn't seem like the most likely explanation. It's more likely that there are just a large number of people who agree with what you think are the US State Department's positions. Whether those people have been in turn influenced is a separate question.
- pastacacioepepe 5y ago
  It's probably a mix. There's a number of fake accounts creating the volume of fake news, while the regular users then pick it up from there. I've never seen such an influx of fake news coming from literally every source. When even newspapers blindly lie it's hard for the regular person to understand what's going on.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > I've never seen such an influx of fake news coming from literally every source. When even newspapers blindly lie it's hard for the regular person to understand what's going on. That's a common tactic of propagadists: To paraylze people - make people feel powerless by convincing them that everything is a lie. Everyone lies, but that doesn't mean there aren't honest people, sociopathic liars, and a big chasm between them. No publication is perfect, but there are plenty of very credible ones.
    - graderjs 5y ago
      information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view. Everything really is propaganda, tho. Nearly. It's also a basic tactic of propagandists to convince people that only approved narratives are good, and the forbidden ones are propaganda. To try normalize themselves a the self-anointed authority that decides which is which. Just like the liars, criminals and corrupt who say, "trust me, I'm honest. Some people lie a lot, but me, you can trust." > sociopathic liars, Like spies, conwomen/conmen and other professional liars? > No publication is perfect, but there are plenty of very credible ones.[0] "A bland, and in this case, meaningless statement." ;) Safest bet is, as I said earlier: read widely!!! [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30550970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30550970
- xhevahir 5y ago
  Is this tendency consistent over several years, though? Because there are some pretty stark differences between the Trump foreign policy and that of Biden or Obama. I don't imagine that many normal users would be inclined to echo the words of Hillary Clinton and later Antony Blinken, and in between them Rex Tillerson. If they have done that, maybe there is some kind of organized effort behind it.
  - Gollapalli 5y ago
    That's an error. The state department is not the same as the president. The previous president did not have a significant degree of control over the state department or any facet of the federal bureaucracy, in all reality.
pastacacioepepe 5y ago
- Sebb767 5y ago
  I have the same impression. With the start of the war, the Russian side completely vanished from basically all forums I saw, except if parodied to a maximum for laughs. Part of that is surely that few people that saw Russias side beforehand don't support the war and don't want to defend it, but basically all I see now is complete and utterly black and white. And I support supporting the Ukraine, but I'm afraid this might be the final breakthrough for maximum polarization.
  - openknot 5y ago
    It's plausible that this represents a genuine change in public opinion. For historical precedent, after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, public opinion in the United States drastically changed from a split to a 91% approval for the United States to declare war. [0] The websites you have viewed, assuming they are in English, likely have a userbase that is primarily from the United States and countries that are part of the Western world. It's reasonable to believe that these countries (which have shared values) have genuinely shifted in public opinion in support of the invaded country. If you're looking for the other side, you can find it in forums which have a userbase from countries that are not part of the Western world, and share different values. However, the views are more neutral for pragmatic purposes (due to prior relationships with Russia), rather than actively in support. [1] Pragmatically, the war is not in the interest of most users across the globe. It represents an escalation that could plausibly lead to nuclear war if a NATO country were to intervene, which is in nobody's interest. It also affects daily life in other countries as gasoline prices are up across the world, and the sanctions will damage to economies outside of Russia. Emotionally and ethically, it's hard to see the footage of civilians dying and getting blown up by missiles as part of the attack. I genuinely don't see a framing where it's a reasonable position to support the war without a massive logical leap or emotional stretch, and believe that other users in Western nations have arrived at the same conclusion. [0] https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us-public-opinion-world-war-II-1939-1941 https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/world/asia/asia-russia-ukraine-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/world/asia/asia-russia-uk...
wolverine876 5y ago
The difference between astrology and astronomy is evidence. Do we have any regading this question?
- mandmandam 5y ago
  r/worldnews is corrupt, and I'm sure you can find a metric fuckton of evidence if you care to look. I saw a wildly popular but politically embarrassing* article there get wiped from the front page for "just being commentary / a blog post with no evidence", when it was actually a Coundcloud link to the politician's actual words. The story was wiped. It is no longer searchable by either Reddit or Google search. This is a post consisting of direct evidence with zero commentary, of the utmost public interest, with 20 thousand upvotes or so. Just memory-holed completely with no appeal. * The Irish Health Minister at the time, Simon Harris, was saying that "we're on Covid-19, so there's been 18 other coronaviruses" .... In fucking MAY of last year. THe Health Minister. And this was AFTER those talking heads in America were reamed for the same mistake.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    If you make the accusations more extreme and express them with more anger, does that make them more likely to be true?
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      It seems like you're saying I've made an accusation more extreme... Care to clarify what you mean? Maybe in a non passive aggressive way?

by K7PJP 5y ago

I'm fairly certain that /r/worldnews is gamed by western intelligence and diplomatic agencies. The top stories and top comments on said stories are invariably towing the US State Department line.

woodruffw 5y ago

All things being equal, this doesn't seem like the most likely explanation. It's more likely that there are just a large number of people who agree with what you think are the US State Department's positions. Whether those people have been in turn influenced is a separate question.

pastacacioepepe 5y ago
It's probably a mix. There's a number of fake accounts creating the volume of fake news, while the regular users then pick it up from there. I've never seen such an influx of fake news coming from literally every source. When even newspapers blindly lie it's hard for the regular person to understand what's going on.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > I've never seen such an influx of fake news coming from literally every source. When even newspapers blindly lie it's hard for the regular person to understand what's going on. That's a common tactic of propagadists: To paraylze people - make people feel powerless by convincing them that everything is a lie. Everyone lies, but that doesn't mean there aren't honest people, sociopathic liars, and a big chasm between them. No publication is perfect, but there are plenty of very credible ones.
  - graderjs 5y ago
    information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view. Everything really is propaganda, tho. Nearly. It's also a basic tactic of propagandists to convince people that only approved narratives are good, and the forbidden ones are propaganda. To try normalize themselves a the self-anointed authority that decides which is which. Just like the liars, criminals and corrupt who say, "trust me, I'm honest. Some people lie a lot, but me, you can trust." > sociopathic liars, Like spies, conwomen/conmen and other professional liars? > No publication is perfect, but there are plenty of very credible ones.[0] "A bland, and in this case, meaningless statement." ;) Safest bet is, as I said earlier: read widely!!! [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30550970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30550970
xhevahir 5y ago
Is this tendency consistent over several years, though? Because there are some pretty stark differences between the Trump foreign policy and that of Biden or Obama. I don't imagine that many normal users would be inclined to echo the words of Hillary Clinton and later Antony Blinken, and in between them Rex Tillerson. If they have done that, maybe there is some kind of organized effort behind it.
- Gollapalli 5y ago
  That's an error. The state department is not the same as the president. The previous president did not have a significant degree of control over the state department or any facet of the federal bureaucracy, in all reality.

pastacacioepepe 5y ago

Sebb767 5y ago
I have the same impression. With the start of the war, the Russian side completely vanished from basically all forums I saw, except if parodied to a maximum for laughs. Part of that is surely that few people that saw Russias side beforehand don't support the war and don't want to defend it, but basically all I see now is complete and utterly black and white. And I support supporting the Ukraine, but I'm afraid this might be the final breakthrough for maximum polarization.
- openknot 5y ago
  It's plausible that this represents a genuine change in public opinion. For historical precedent, after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, public opinion in the United States drastically changed from a split to a 91% approval for the United States to declare war. [0] The websites you have viewed, assuming they are in English, likely have a userbase that is primarily from the United States and countries that are part of the Western world. It's reasonable to believe that these countries (which have shared values) have genuinely shifted in public opinion in support of the invaded country. If you're looking for the other side, you can find it in forums which have a userbase from countries that are not part of the Western world, and share different values. However, the views are more neutral for pragmatic purposes (due to prior relationships with Russia), rather than actively in support. [1] Pragmatically, the war is not in the interest of most users across the globe. It represents an escalation that could plausibly lead to nuclear war if a NATO country were to intervene, which is in nobody's interest. It also affects daily life in other countries as gasoline prices are up across the world, and the sanctions will damage to economies outside of Russia. Emotionally and ethically, it's hard to see the footage of civilians dying and getting blown up by missiles as part of the attack. I genuinely don't see a framing where it's a reasonable position to support the war without a massive logical leap or emotional stretch, and believe that other users in Western nations have arrived at the same conclusion. [0] https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us-public-opinion-world-war-II-1939-1941 https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/world/asia/asia-russia-ukraine-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/world/asia/asia-russia-uk...

wolverine876 5y ago

The difference between astrology and astronomy is evidence. Do we have any regading this question?

mandmandam 5y ago
r/worldnews is corrupt, and I'm sure you can find a metric fuckton of evidence if you care to look. I saw a wildly popular but politically embarrassing* article there get wiped from the front page for "just being commentary / a blog post with no evidence", when it was actually a Coundcloud link to the politician's actual words. The story was wiped. It is no longer searchable by either Reddit or Google search. This is a post consisting of direct evidence with zero commentary, of the utmost public interest, with 20 thousand upvotes or so. Just memory-holed completely with no appeal. * The Irish Health Minister at the time, Simon Harris, was saying that "we're on Covid-19, so there's been 18 other coronaviruses" .... In fucking MAY of last year. THe Health Minister. And this was AFTER those talking heads in America were reamed for the same mistake.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  If you make the accusations more extreme and express them with more anger, does that make them more likely to be true?
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    It seems like you're saying I've made an accusation more extreme... Care to clarify what you mean? Maybe in a non passive aggressive way?