3 ms·

I mean, that's a basically a distinction without a difference, depending on who wields the power. Disinformation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea c

by mc32 5y ago

I mean, that's a basically a distinction without a difference, depending on who wields the power. Disinformation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea can be anything that goes against any official line. In the US disinformation can also be things (but not all things) that go against the official government line, v.g: Covid, elections, official promulgations, fact checks, etc. It can be difficult to mark a difference, but it's safe to say that at least as of now, fewer things would be marked disinformation in the US despite the new DHS office that would appear to ape how soviet systems (such as DPRK) would deal with what they deem misinformation.

atoav 5y ago
For me the border where it starts to flip is whether branding something "disinformation" tells more about the brander or the branded. For example a Russian protester being detained for displaying an empty poster, doesn't tell us a lot about the specific believes of the person with the poster, but a lot about the people who react to such a thing by robbing that persons freedom by claiming it was desinformation (which it wasn't, it was a symbolic act of protest). On the other hand if someone claims vaccines are a evil plot to inject nanobots into our bloodstreams to track everybodies position, this would be desinformation even without any state entity ever reacting to it. It tells a lot about the believe systems and world view of the person claiming such things, but it doesn't necessarily relate a lot to actual policy out there. A third thing would be strategic denounciations like the ones the Nazis used when they coined ther term "Lügenpresse" which translates to "lie-press" or more modern: "fake media". This is used as a form of preventative denounciation. So the act of calling things disinformation before it is even clear what is said in order to weaken it's credibility once it is said and to create an incentive for their followers to only listen to them, not to others. This of course tells also more about the entity who calls something desinformation than about the receipients of such labels which can be wildly different people and organisations.
- mc32 5y ago
  The media have their agenda and have spread misinformation on purpose throughout the ages. Sometimes there were trustworthy "newsmen" or presenters/anchors. However, quite often in the political realm they did not shy away from pushing agendas. how many 'conspiracy theories' turned out to be true? Recently we've had lots of misinformation disseminated via the media on behalf of officials as well as 'thought leaders'. There was the who Covid thing and its many bits of misinformation from pushing wet market narratives, to people drop dead on the street to masks don't work and back to masks work. The reluctance to examine the numbers when it comes to Covid. Also, dismissal of the younger Biden story as well as promoting the debunked "Russia-gate". So, yeah, they do lie and they diffuse many fake stories which undermine their credibility. Wild conspiracy theories (nanobots and 5G towers, etc) do not disprove the lies as well as hysteria conducted by the media.

by mc32 5y ago

atoav 5y ago

For me the border where it starts to flip is whether branding something "disinformation" tells more about the brander or the branded. For example a Russian protester being detained for displaying an empty poster, doesn't tell us a lot about the specific believes of the person with the poster, but a lot about the people who react to such a thing by robbing that persons freedom by claiming it was desinformation (which it wasn't, it was a symbolic act of protest). On the other hand if someone claims vaccines are a evil plot to inject nanobots into our bloodstreams to track everybodies position, this would be desinformation even without any state entity ever reacting to it. It tells a lot about the believe systems and world view of the person claiming such things, but it doesn't necessarily relate a lot to actual policy out there. A third thing would be strategic denounciations like the ones the Nazis used when they coined ther term "Lügenpresse" which translates to "lie-press" or more modern: "fake media". This is used as a form of preventative denounciation. So the act of calling things disinformation before it is even clear what is said in order to weaken it's credibility once it is said and to create an incentive for their followers to only listen to them, not to others. This of course tells also more about the entity who calls something desinformation than about the receipients of such labels which can be wildly different people and organisations.

mc32 5y ago
The media have their agenda and have spread misinformation on purpose throughout the ages. Sometimes there were trustworthy "newsmen" or presenters/anchors. However, quite often in the political realm they did not shy away from pushing agendas. how many 'conspiracy theories' turned out to be true? Recently we've had lots of misinformation disseminated via the media on behalf of officials as well as 'thought leaders'. There was the who Covid thing and its many bits of misinformation from pushing wet market narratives, to people drop dead on the street to masks don't work and back to masks work. The reluctance to examine the numbers when it comes to Covid. Also, dismissal of the younger Biden story as well as promoting the debunked "Russia-gate". So, yeah, they do lie and they diffuse many fake stories which undermine their credibility. Wild conspiracy theories (nanobots and 5G towers, etc) do not disprove the lies as well as hysteria conducted by the media.