3 ms·

even the word "disinformation" is just a frame

malfist 1y ago
That's the tolerance paradox. Things can be disinformation without playing games with equivocation. If Phillip morris is running a bot farm or paying people to tell others that smoking is healthy and doesn't cause cancer, then we have a duty to call that disinformation and strive to correct it. And I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me about the growing lung cancer rates in nonsmokers or that lung cancer is more deadly in nonsmokers.
- jerkstate 1y ago
  That's completely irrelevant to the original poster's point. The "Disinformation Governance Board" as referenced in the original post was not sponsored by phillip morris, and did not claim that smoking was healthy. Instead, it was sponsored by taxpayers, and was run by people with clear political goals for the suppression of what they considered "disinformation" "misinformation" and "malinformation"
  - throwawayq3423 1y ago
    Instead, it was sponsored by taxpayers, and was run by people with clear political goals for the suppression of what they considered "disinformation" "misinformation" and "malinformation" Not a word of that is accurate. 1. The US government has never had the authority to remove content. They merely flag what they find of foreign and malign origin for platforms, which then take the decisions themselves. 2. The U.S. government worked to uncover foreign influence operations. If those influence operations, aside from promoting chaos, supported one candidate over another, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card to ignore them. What it should be is a moment of introspection for conservatives as to why unambiguous enemies of America want the candidate that you want to run the country. But that introspection has not and probably will never come.
    - jerkstate 1y ago
      > Not a word of that is accurate. Check the wikipedia page > The US government has never had the authority to remove content. this is technically true, but false in practice. > The U.S. government worked to uncover foreign influence operations. If those influence operations, aside from promoting chaos, supported one candidate over another, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card to ignore them. they worked to uncover some foreign influence operations (and broadly propagandized the connection to the political campaign); other foreign influence operations (such as a certain dossier compiled by a foreign intelligence agent, colluding with one of the political parties, and using many foreign intelligence sources), they used as the basis for propaganda in mainstream media, which was laundered back into "evidence" for an intelligence operation against a political candidate. Classic disinformation technique. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg Do you see what I mean when I say "disinformation is a frame" ?
      - mdhb 1y ago
        This is peak drunk uncle at thanksgiving vibes.
        throwawayq3423 1y ago
        Honestly when he cited a woman singing a parody of Mary Poppins as proof of a grand conspiracy, I probably should have stopped then.
      - throwawayq3423 1y ago
        > Check the wikipedia page Check it for what? I can't know what narrative you have in your head which you are trying and failing to communicate to me. > this is technically true, but false in practice. lol "I'm wrong but if you think of it a different way, my way, then I'm right." > such as a certain dossier compiled by a foreign intelligence agent, colluding with one of the political parties The Steele dossier, which you're referring to, started off as opposition research funded by Republicans. I don't have the time nor the desire to debunk everything else you said point by point. You see the world the way you want to, and you are shaping reality based on what you want to believe. A "classic disinformation technique", ironically. > See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg See what? A cringe TikTok video? What is this supposedly proof of? I know all these conspiracies make sense in your head, but I literally have no idea what you're trying to say.
throwawayq3423 1y ago
No, it's a classification of information. And you're deflecting away from the fact that no one can agree on basic definitions of terminology and everyone is just talking past each other.

That's the tolerance paradox. Things can be disinformation without playing games with equivocation. If Phillip morris is running a bot farm or paying people to tell others that smoking is healthy and doesn't cause cancer, then we have a duty to call that disinformation and strive to correct it. And I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me about the growing lung cancer rates in nonsmokers or that lung cancer is more deadly in nonsmokers.

jerkstate 1y ago
That's completely irrelevant to the original poster's point. The "Disinformation Governance Board" as referenced in the original post was not sponsored by phillip morris, and did not claim that smoking was healthy. Instead, it was sponsored by taxpayers, and was run by people with clear political goals for the suppression of what they considered "disinformation" "misinformation" and "malinformation"
- throwawayq3423 1y ago
  Instead, it was sponsored by taxpayers, and was run by people with clear political goals for the suppression of what they considered "disinformation" "misinformation" and "malinformation" Not a word of that is accurate. 1. The US government has never had the authority to remove content. They merely flag what they find of foreign and malign origin for platforms, which then take the decisions themselves. 2. The U.S. government worked to uncover foreign influence operations. If those influence operations, aside from promoting chaos, supported one candidate over another, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card to ignore them. What it should be is a moment of introspection for conservatives as to why unambiguous enemies of America want the candidate that you want to run the country. But that introspection has not and probably will never come.
  - jerkstate 1y ago
    > Not a word of that is accurate. Check the wikipedia page > The US government has never had the authority to remove content. this is technically true, but false in practice. > The U.S. government worked to uncover foreign influence operations. If those influence operations, aside from promoting chaos, supported one candidate over another, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card to ignore them. they worked to uncover some foreign influence operations (and broadly propagandized the connection to the political campaign); other foreign influence operations (such as a certain dossier compiled by a foreign intelligence agent, colluding with one of the political parties, and using many foreign intelligence sources), they used as the basis for propaganda in mainstream media, which was laundered back into "evidence" for an intelligence operation against a political candidate. Classic disinformation technique. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg Do you see what I mean when I say "disinformation is a frame" ?
    - mdhb 1y ago
      This is peak drunk uncle at thanksgiving vibes.
      - throwawayq3423 1y ago
        Honestly when he cited a woman singing a parody of Mary Poppins as proof of a grand conspiracy, I probably should have stopped then.
    - throwawayq3423 1y ago
      > Check the wikipedia page Check it for what? I can't know what narrative you have in your head which you are trying and failing to communicate to me. > this is technically true, but false in practice. lol "I'm wrong but if you think of it a different way, my way, then I'm right." > such as a certain dossier compiled by a foreign intelligence agent, colluding with one of the political parties The Steele dossier, which you're referring to, started off as opposition research funded by Republicans. I don't have the time nor the desire to debunk everything else you said point by point. You see the world the way you want to, and you are shaping reality based on what you want to believe. A "classic disinformation technique", ironically. > See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg See what? A cringe TikTok video? What is this supposedly proof of? I know all these conspiracies make sense in your head, but I literally have no idea what you're trying to say.

throwawayq3423 1y ago

No, it's a classification of information. And you're deflecting away from the fact that no one can agree on basic definitions of terminology and everyone is just talking past each other.