6 ms·

The misinformation/talking-points ideology is bipartisan norm for Russia and China discourse. There are numerous articles and studies now claiming to measure di

The misinformation/talking-points ideology is bipartisan norm for Russia and China discourse. There are numerous articles and studies now claiming to measure disinformation purely based on alignment: rough alignment with “enemy” = dis/misinformation, with no justification or discussion. The NYTimes ran one such article about a week ago on China. The “fact checking” done by orgs like VoxUkraine amounts to similar alignment tests as well. You would think the results showing widespread wrongthink by your own population would be an indication of disagreement rather than a disinformation campaign working on a citizenry already justifiably motivated against Russia: https://voxukraine.org/en/the-ability-of-ukrainians-to-distinguish-messages-of-russian-propaganda-results-of-public-opinion-research https://voxukraine.org/en/the-ability-of-ukrainians-to-disti... > Research Results > Overall, the majority of respondents, both in Ukraine and abroad, agreed with pro-Ukrainian messages and disagreed with pro-Russian ones. This indicates a general tendency of the population to distinguish Russian propaganda narratives. However, when analyzing each narrative separately, the following concerning signals were noticeable: > 43% of respondents in Ukraine and 36% abroad disagreed with the statement “Nazi and/or neo-Nazi ideology is not widespread in Ukraine”; > 29% of respondents in Ukraine and 35% abroad disagreed with the statement “The Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine in 2013-2014 was NOT a coup”; > 26% of respondents in Ukraine and 29% abroad agreed with the statement “Russia is fighting against the West/NATO in Ukraine”; > 25% of respondents in Ukraine and 29% abroad agreed with the statement “The West is using Ukraine for its own purposes in the war against Russia”; > 32% of respondents abroad agreed with the statement “Russian speakers are oppressed in Ukraine”. This is all to say that I think your optimism is misplaced.

Guvante 3y ago
> There are numerous articles and studies now claiming to measure disinformation purely based on alignment You are phrasing this as "being on Russia's side means you believe the propaganda" as if that somehow turns it into not a disinformation campaign. How can something be disinformation in that mindset? You eliminated the category completely. You phrase as if it is a marginal thing showing their bias is showing at the top, but then go to list the most egregious examples of disinformation as evidence... I mean at least your last three aren't explicitly false, so not all disinformation. Disinformation is about false statements. Neo-Nazi ideology being in Ukraine hasn't been meaningfully backed up by Russia nor is their any international precedent for such a thing being a justification for invasion. Remember the Nazis invaded first. Revolution of Dignity was a coup by definition. If Hong Kong declared it was independent of China it would be a coup. It doesn't matter your feelings on the treaty saying it would be X years before control was taken or anything of that nature. Unilaterally leaving a parent entity is the meaning of coup. Proxy wars are weird so your next two questions are odd. There is ambiguity in the question. Is the West using Ukraine to reduce Russia's power acting as a sort of proxy war? Certainly but since Ukraine is objectively the defender here that doesn't seem problematic, the alternative would be to let be invaded which while bad for the West is also bad for Ukraine. I don't have any data on suppression based on language but also don't think mistreatment justifies invasion. We have economic pain points to push instead.
- dundarious 3y ago
  > You are phrasing this as "being on Russia's side means you believe the propaganda" as if that somehow turns it into not a disinformation campaign. > How can something be disinformation in that mindset? You eliminated the category completely. Not at all. VoxUkraine state accurately, though as a minor point I would dispute the terminology somewhat, that there is "pro-Ukraine" and "pro-Russia" propaganda. The truth or falsehood of individual pieces of each side's propaganda is a separate matter. As an extension, it's also the case that one side's propaganda may use lies to promote statements that are nonetheless true! If you insist on the "disinformation" label, then I think we often must go into Rumsfeld-ian territory and talk of "true disinformation" and "false disinformation". So my original point was, statements may be true/false regardless of whether they are part of an evil/enemy/exaggerating propaganda campaign (likewise, statements may be false/true regardless of whether they are part of a propaganda campaign from an ally). I openly acknowledge the propaganda campaigns. I just consider VoxUkraine to be engaging in their own propaganda campaign, and making some false statements. Russia's propaganda campaign makes laughably false statements regularly (their "denazification" justification being one of them). On the key topic you raise of justification for the war, I want to note that that was not part of the quoted text from VoxUkraine, so I made no argument about justification. I think there was no moral justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, certainly none of the ones they presented. Unfortunately, I don't think that lets NATO, etc., off the hook, as you are morally responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions, even if a predictable consequence is an immoral act from another party, but that is a more complicated matter. And these questions came from VoxUkraine's polling. If you have quibbles with the phraseology, they're not with me. I could write more to respond to your specific points, but because they seemed to mostly revolve around justification of the invasion and polling phraseology, I'll hold back for now, given my comments above. I also spent a few minutes editing this response for clarity and completeness, but am finished now.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    > Unfortunately, I don't think that lets NATO, etc., off the hook, as you are morally responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions, even if a predictable consequence is an immoral act from another party, but that is a more complicated matter. Is there a "moral" act here? What should they do? Certainly providing arms will result in loss of life but that is twisted logic IMHO. You pointed to the phrasing as problematic so I handled why responses would be mixed. You implied that the fact different responses came in was indictive of it being a political thing. Nothing you have said has been consistent or clarifying simply muddying the waters by misdirecting.

Guvante 3y ago

> There are numerous articles and studies now claiming to measure disinformation purely based on alignment You are phrasing this as "being on Russia's side means you believe the propaganda" as if that somehow turns it into not a disinformation campaign. How can something be disinformation in that mindset? You eliminated the category completely. You phrase as if it is a marginal thing showing their bias is showing at the top, but then go to list the most egregious examples of disinformation as evidence... I mean at least your last three aren't explicitly false, so not all disinformation. Disinformation is about false statements. Neo-Nazi ideology being in Ukraine hasn't been meaningfully backed up by Russia nor is their any international precedent for such a thing being a justification for invasion. Remember the Nazis invaded first. Revolution of Dignity was a coup by definition. If Hong Kong declared it was independent of China it would be a coup. It doesn't matter your feelings on the treaty saying it would be X years before control was taken or anything of that nature. Unilaterally leaving a parent entity is the meaning of coup. Proxy wars are weird so your next two questions are odd. There is ambiguity in the question. Is the West using Ukraine to reduce Russia's power acting as a sort of proxy war? Certainly but since Ukraine is objectively the defender here that doesn't seem problematic, the alternative would be to let be invaded which while bad for the West is also bad for Ukraine. I don't have any data on suppression based on language but also don't think mistreatment justifies invasion. We have economic pain points to push instead.

dundarious 3y ago
> You are phrasing this as "being on Russia's side means you believe the propaganda" as if that somehow turns it into not a disinformation campaign. > How can something be disinformation in that mindset? You eliminated the category completely. Not at all. VoxUkraine state accurately, though as a minor point I would dispute the terminology somewhat, that there is "pro-Ukraine" and "pro-Russia" propaganda. The truth or falsehood of individual pieces of each side's propaganda is a separate matter. As an extension, it's also the case that one side's propaganda may use lies to promote statements that are nonetheless true! If you insist on the "disinformation" label, then I think we often must go into Rumsfeld-ian territory and talk of "true disinformation" and "false disinformation". So my original point was, statements may be true/false regardless of whether they are part of an evil/enemy/exaggerating propaganda campaign (likewise, statements may be false/true regardless of whether they are part of a propaganda campaign from an ally). I openly acknowledge the propaganda campaigns. I just consider VoxUkraine to be engaging in their own propaganda campaign, and making some false statements. Russia's propaganda campaign makes laughably false statements regularly (their "denazification" justification being one of them). On the key topic you raise of justification for the war, I want to note that that was not part of the quoted text from VoxUkraine, so I made no argument about justification. I think there was no moral justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, certainly none of the ones they presented. Unfortunately, I don't think that lets NATO, etc., off the hook, as you are morally responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions, even if a predictable consequence is an immoral act from another party, but that is a more complicated matter. And these questions came from VoxUkraine's polling. If you have quibbles with the phraseology, they're not with me. I could write more to respond to your specific points, but because they seemed to mostly revolve around justification of the invasion and polling phraseology, I'll hold back for now, given my comments above. I also spent a few minutes editing this response for clarity and completeness, but am finished now.
- Guvante 3y ago
  > Unfortunately, I don't think that lets NATO, etc., off the hook, as you are morally responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions, even if a predictable consequence is an immoral act from another party, but that is a more complicated matter. Is there a "moral" act here? What should they do? Certainly providing arms will result in loss of life but that is twisted logic IMHO. You pointed to the phrasing as problematic so I handled why responses would be mixed. You implied that the fact different responses came in was indictive of it being a political thing. Nothing you have said has been consistent or clarifying simply muddying the waters by misdirecting.