This community is closed. Join !fediverse_vs_disinfo@lemmy.dbzer0.com instead.
———————
Pointing out, fighting, spreading awareness about State sponsored and Company sponsored astroturfing on Lemmy and elsewhere. This includes social media manipulation, propaganda, and disinformation campaigns, among others.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/17793163
It's unbelievable how vocal the minority of conservatives on reddit have suddenly gotten in the one sub where a large demographic of important voters often interact. Hmmm. Coincidence?
Meanwhile on the r/JordanPeterson sub right now, there's a complaint about leftwing bots on r/millennials
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/1e8cwwh/uptick_in_propaganda_bots_or_post/le6m8jo/
...oh r/millennials says there's two subs... r/millennials and r/millenials with one n... Maybe that's part of what's going on.
Got called an llm arguing with a Trumper on one of those posts. On my 13 year old account. By his 3-month old account.
I just think it's incredible how many conservatives are completely willing to handwave pedophilia as long as it's their guy, bots or no.
I agree with yggstyle here, trying to silence your opponents is bad form and can quickly snow ball into fascism.
You just need to counter bots with your bots. We have AI now for Christ sake, it’s really not that hard to train ‘em, deploy ‘em, and manage ‘em
Edit: Santa’s coming to town mfers
https://blog.replit.com/llm-training
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38759877
https://medium.com/intel-analytics-software/create-your-own-chatbot-on-cpus-b8d186cfefb2
Now for creating bot farms, you’re going to need to sail those waters yourself, as they’re often against TOS/UAs, but I don’t think you’ll have to look too hard
Edit: Republicans didn’t like the idea of fighting back ig
It's a bit unclear how any of what you're proposing is supposed to help
Problem: community is being flooded with content A which is diametrically opposed to a content B
Solution: flood content B
… your solution to spam is more spam?
When getting the original spam taken down isn’t going to happen?
Absolutely, yes. Businesses respond to big problems and monetary problems, this is how you effect change.
Well, I do understand your logic at least even though I'm not exactly convinced about the mechanics.
Edit: non-native English speaker here, halp, "convinced about" or "convinced of"?
And i want to clarify I’m not saying spam shit posts, but spamming actual information, articles and actual good content is precisely an equivalent fight to combat flooding propaganda, and a pretty benign one at that when you look at more extreme gorilla tactics
of is more common, but both are grammar.
Ah I somehow had the impression that there was some sort of subtle difference between convinced of/about. Thanks
there is a difference, and youre right, its subtle. subtle enough thtat at this level of discussion, with the context provided, no one could mistake your meaning either way.
since you seem to be curious, "convinced of" refers definitely to being fully persuaded by the relevant subject. look up the dictionary definition of "of" and youll find a bunch of use cases, many of which particularize or otherwise specify something that follows.
"convinced about" is still definite about the conviction, but the word about makes the subject of conviction connotatively less particular. about means something approximate, similar (or perhaps similar enough), or nearby. otoh, it has a perfecty valid use, as in the case in which you used it just now, as a specifying preposition.
They both work, theyre both grammar. "not sure about" is more common than "not sure of". "not convinced of" is more common than "not convinced about". i leave it as an exercise to the reader to puzzle out why that might be.
I think “convinced of” is more correct, but both phrases work. Could also say “convinced on”.
This is simply the reality of what division brings. The second it becomes less about discussion and more about us vs them the topics stop mattering. Discussion breaks down and you have yet another rift our society - regardless of how many people probably are at neither extreme. Anyone with moderate ideals or somewhere in between is ultimately forced to one side or the other ... or trampled by both. It's a disgusting degradation of a culture/society that despite being more connected than ever is finding more and more ways to isolate everyone.
Good on you for speaking up on what you believe. It sucks sometimes but it's better to put the words out there.
Part of the troll factory tactic is to make it a morally grey zone, because they know they have the money and the numbers to materialize it. Indiscriminately doing this is helping them in their effort to lower the information to noise ratio and make their efforts more indistinguishable from "the other side's" turning it into a "well, they would do it too, if they were as successful and had as much money and resources as us" argument.
I'm aware of this tactic. There are a few well documented systems that work very efficiently at splintering groups. The problem with labeling any conversation that falls into the grey area, like it or not, is actually alienating the vast majority of nonpolarized viewpoints. Either you fall in line with faction a or b or you are the enemy of both. Political parties have used this effectively for decades. You beat the majority by splitting them into subfactions. This thread and topic is a spectacular demonstration of the result.
Doesn't matter, if a conversation is likely to influence someone, then that makes it the ideal target for a troll factory. Troll factories also don't just influence one side, they influence any "factions" people might crowd in. The most straightforward solution is eliminating high noise-to-signal ratios, in other words, misinformation and disinformation, and being transparent about it.But that will never be effective against people who just don't care about the noise-to-signal ratio and just care about the information that satisfies their ego. It will never be effective against cults.
There's a reason we need to filter out spam, and there's a reason we need to filter out disinformation and misinformation, it isn't just factions, but yes, it will necessarily devolve conversations into factions because some of them just don't curate the quality of their information.
See but, this isn’t indiscriminate action, I mentioned in another comment that I don’t mean flood shit posts, but to flood with valuable and informative content.
If we cannot stop the pipe from spewing sewage, we have to counter flood with enriched flow to lower the ratio of shit:water.
We will still have a flooding problem, don’t get me wrong, but that is a much larger problem that exists. Republicans have been quoted as stating they just want to muddy waters. We need to flood with water to reduce how muddy they truly are. And certainly not with more mud.
The distinct problem we face is that of busy minds who don’t have the capacity to filter. So they flood with mud to bog down the mind. Hope this makes sense and helps to clear up my intentions/proposed soln.
There are sites that try to do this like ground.news , but the problem I think is that you are misjudging which side has the people really willing to inform themselves and which just accept the information that is convenient for their ego.
I have to disagree with you. Both sides have their fair share of people who are interested in informing themselves, and until we actually have statistics, this is a bias-prone best guess.
Laziness is not inherent to political ideals in any way.
While it has been proven time and again that corps and countries will seed social media with narratives...
I would caution people against brigadeing against ideologies and opinions counter to what you may be comfortable with. That is a surefire way to make an echo chamber. Simply downvoting an opinion you don't agree with- without providing discussion simply becomes a silent mechanism for oppressing those views.
Edit:
Irony never fails to amuse.
I do not need to immerse myself in fascist rhetoric to be reminded that fascists exist.
I get your point but in curating my content I am not burying my head in the sand but using my time and energy in better ways.
This statement in and of itself is divisive and isn't helpful. The behavior is no better than the behavior you apparently abhor.
I am no fan of most of the positions taken but I'm not so closed minded to suppress someone else's opinion without discussion.
You are welcome to disagree, but being an instigator by your actions and words will not improve this community. Period.
Edit:
Allow me to shed light on why I said be careful.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation....
To enforce only one side of a conversation is in effect only creating the exact same environment. It's hypocrisy. I agree we should be mindful- but also mindful we ourselves do not become oppressive.
You are welcome to continue to talk to them. I am not. Fascists play with words, they do not debate.
Reread that statement and tell me where the flaw is. Seriously. I've debated neonazis publicly... I do not agree with their ideals - but I believe firmly in freedom of speech. What you are describing is simply the same thing at the other extreme.
You're here policing how people should use Lemmy and castigating them for "not improving" the community because they won't do what you want, and you're telling us to be mindful "we ourselves do not become oppressive"?
I wonder what the LD~50~ of irony is.
I didn't read this as policing anyone tbh. Sounds more like the person is saying we need to remain open to prevent ourselves from becoming as bad as those we aren't open to. Makes sense to me to be honest.
Still, I understand others may just not want to join in with these discussions. That's obviously an individual decision.
Cue some downvotes for not being a 'buy yer pitchforks' comment.
Edit. Which bit of those comments was castigating people? I'm tired and maybe I'm just missing something.
Thank you. Yea. this exactly.
The reason I urge discussion rather than anonymous retribution vis a vis downvote brigadeing is it reinforces group think. Echo chambers.
If you can discuss a problem it's easy enough to dismantle a LOT of the rhetoric thrown around by hate groups... but if you simply meet intolerance and hate with the same nothing good comes of it.
OP, like many, may have their heart in the right place but is, as far as I am concerned, virtue signaling and nothing more.
I'm not policing anything. I recommended moderation. The biggest hole people fall into is division. You don't like x so you hate y. It's nonbinary.
This fallout is exactly why I recommend moderation. My remarks aren't inflammatory yet are being treated with the same response you might to someone recommending ethnic cleansing. Why? Because I didn't agree and fall in line with "oppress the opposition.". That is the problem.
It's easy to let others think for you. Social media is rife with it. I just want people to stop being so easily herded.
Why? Because I didn't agree and fall in line with "oppress the opposition.". That is the problem.
No, the problem is that you're frankly so self-important, needlessly abrasive and pointlessly combative about this. You're getting downvoted without comments not because you don't "fall in line", but because I frankly doubt all that many people have the energy to even bother arguing. Things like alluding to others who aren't as enlightened as you to have the exact same opinons as you do as being sheep ("easily herded"), or acting like you're owed some sort of debate with each downvote wasn't exactly going to win you friends and influence people, or at least absolutely not in the way you clearly would have wanted.
Want people to listen to you? Maybe don't be an asshole to people you're trying to win over? I know that's not how you see what's going on here, but come on
A strongly worded assertion for moderation isn't combative. The call for action that this post is- was.
You seem to be assigning a lot of words to my actions... care to actually make an example of it? The quote you used simply highlights the reaction to a literal "hey this is a slippery slope maybe don't just brigade opposing views" statement.... which quite literally is what we are seeing play out.
Alluding to / owed / etc statement
At no point did I say any of this. I stated that the reason you should disagree vocally is because it lets people participate in discourse. Seeing a number before reading a post simply assigns an "expectation of the group" on how you should respond. If herd mentality weren't a thing this post would be moot.
Calling for any type of brigadeing on this medium is tantamount to asking to silence another party.
It's incorrect. Even if you disagree with them - it's just as much their right to express those views as it is yours to disagree with them.
You are why the gods invented the block button, I suppose.
Yeah that's kinda the point. We trivialize it but it's a slippery slope none the less.
I'm calling you a sealion, since that seems lost on you.
Telling others to subject themselves to terrible opinions for the sake of "not making an echo chamber" is absurd. This is even more absurd of a take when it deals with trying to counter a brigade or excluding intolerant fascists. They don't deserve our time or consideration.
That's not what is being called for. It was calling for action against people and their opinions which is fine in theory but is basically calling for polarization and brigadeing.
Your image and statement just highlights this. A moderate opinion being polarized. Hence my response.
What irony? Your comment is perfectly legible. Fortunately this hasn't turned out like reddit, where massively downvoted comments get hidden, and the moderators and admins who would ban you for your comments just being "too negative" are either localized to instances or are no longer present.
The only bad thing is you can't normally see and check out who's doing the downvoting, which promotes unverifiable suspicion since people are going to make up their own answer if none is provided anyway, otherwise it's mostly meaningless.
Downvotes are essentially useless in lemmy, and that has proven to be a good thing. It adds nothing and just proves that for some reason a large accounts are tagging your comment negative. If the comment is really bad, plenty of other options to deal with it. It isn't even a cohesive concept for everyone, some people upvote and downvote everything, they cannot think of a world where maybe you just don't have an opinion about something because you are either not interested or its outside of your scope of knowledge.
I do think that the differences in downvotes on Lemmy are overall beneficial. Reddit had this problem far worse - but I still think that opinions should be attached to words. It's a social platform: if you don't want to interact that's your prerogative. While I acknowledge the existence of them I rarely let them direct my statements. It's not batons and tear gas.
That said: I agree with your final statements... not everyone needs to participate in every conversation (we can still read and form opinions.)
Objectively how you feel about a call for brigadeing a particular viewpoint? Yes, I will give you that a lot of the shit posted by some of these groups is deplorable, but does that give us the right to simply ostracize the group as a whole?
You've made some good and valid points- I'm looking forward to your response. Cheers.
I think that Lemmy is just step in the road towards a better system. I frankly would prefer a system that was truly federated - where communities wouldn't be hosted by a particular server, but rather, just a group of moderators and curators you could tailor, where each server could remove the messages they each deem to offensive by the most flagrant violators but it would be up to particular moderators / curators you choose to curate the comments that would show under a given tag and whose upvotes/downvotes should be discarded for a more fine-tuned experience.
Regarding upvotes and downvotes, requiring at least a reason and showing who made a downvote would definitely be a plus in my book, and would allow you to judge the reliability and judgement of people whom you might choose in your customized group of moderators/curators.
Education is a form of brigading a particular viewpoint, the problem in today's world is accepting information that has poor noise-to-information ratio, which gives a skewed view of things. Every site and instance should have a right to curate its content, and you can even develop dedicated information sources like ground.news if you want to look at how information is getting skewed.
But it isn't something that's happening equally across sides, because the sides that are actually being molded are those that respect the purpose and ideals of a government versus those that see it as a means to an ends, and it is the latter that has a much, much higher noise-to-information ratio which should be respected about as much as one respects spam.
I think that Lemmy is just step in the road towards a better system. I frankly would prefer a system that was truly federated...
Figuring out a platform that can both cater to the needs of others while being a center for good discussion is a massive challenge. Lemmy certainly has its flaws but is decidedly better for its decentralized nature. I view it as a work in progress which, at some point, may turn into something better. I think we agree there.
Regarding upvotes and downvotes, requiring at least a reason and showing who made a downvote would definitely be a plus in my book, and would allow you to judge the reliability and judgement of people whom you might choose in your customized group of moderators/curators.
Absolutely. If you are willing to cash a vote you should be willing to stand by it. Better still if you are willing to expand on the topic with your input.
Education is a form of brigading a particular viewpoint...
I get what you are saying but I think I would express this: education can contain indoctrination - but indoctrination rarely is educational.
Education should be expanding knowledge with which to build opinions and ideas from - whereas indoctrination states and immutable rule that you shouldn't question.
Brigadeing is indoctrination, without question. And I think that's probably what you were getting at.
To your point about ground news and having a clear view of biases: I believe we need to go back to when news was reported on in a neutral way. No stories, no sensationalism: just facts. Let the people decide how to parse it.
But it isn't something that's happening equally across sides
This is partially perception and survivors bias. Platform to platform - community to community - you will see what rises to the surface differ. Voting systems and brigadeing will influence people to only behave in a particular way. The unfortunate thing is eventually you end up with a well programmed group of yes-men. This is the flaw in current iterations of social media. A byproduct of this is people who have little to no tolerance for any opposing viewpoints which is awful for a multitude of reasons.
I'm not sure if I have much to add beyond this. You hit the nail on the head in a lot of your points. I feel like a lot of people probably sense these things unconsciously but struggle to identify them.
From a personal perspective, if you are ok with it, it's education, and if you are not, it's indoctrination. The most objective and practical way to approach information is determining the reliability, truthfulness, verifiability and reproducibility of information provided by good sources over bad ones. Trying to do that for every piece of information is basically looking through spam.
A good education is not indoctrination, as it must be able to question itself for it to be good. Yet it must also curate against bad, flawed, or fallible arguments by necessity. There might be any number of curators and sources, but they do exist and they must be discerning. Allowing all and any type of arguments makes people a casualty of statistics of whatever arguments have the greatest presence in their attention spans, something easily stacked by troll factories, and can be saturated with disinformation and echoed through misinformation, making people consider the greys between smoke screens. Through this oversaturation, their perspective of the world can become quite indoctrinated if there is no discernment.