this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2025
76 points (97.5% liked)

Fediverse vs Disinformation

1600 readers
201 users here now

Pointing out, debunking, and spreading awareness about state- and company-sponsored astroturfing on Lemmy and elsewhere. This includes social media manipulation, propaganda, and disinformation campaigns, among others.

Propaganda and disinformation are a big problem on the internet, and the Fediverse is no exception.

What's the difference between misinformation and disinformation? The inadvertent spread of false information is misinformation. Disinformation is the intentional spread of falsehoods.

By equipping yourself with knowledge of current disinformation campaigns by state actors, corporations and their cheerleaders, you will be better able to identify, report and (hopefully) remove content matching known disinformation campaigns.


Community rules

Same as instance rules, plus:

  1. No disinformation
  2. Posts must be relevant to the topic of astroturfing, propaganda and/or disinformation

Related websites


Matrix chat links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

They took umbrage at their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, calling the double-tap bombing of Nasser hospital “a tragic mishap”. It was neither tragic nor a mishap, according to them. Channel 14, which supports Netanyahu’s government and the war, reported military sources as saying the attack killed “terrorists disguised as journalists”. The sources said that soldiers targeted a Hamas “terror headquarters” in Nasser hospital.

“According to the current security concept, any place where terrorists operate, whether it used to be a school or a hospital, becomes a legitimate target,” the report noted. Soldiers involved in the attack told Channel 14 that it had been “approved and coordinated with the senior command, and they knew about it before it was carried out”. Similarly, Maariv reported that it was carried out “after receiving approvals from the command level”.

Zvi Yehezkeli, the Arab affairs correspondent for i24 News, praised the killings in Khan Younis: “These are Nukhba men in every way,” he said, referring to the slain journalists as members of an elite Hamas military unit. “If Israel decides to eliminate the journalists, then it’s better late than never.” Yehezkeli, a settler living in the occupied West Bank, is at least being honest. That is more than can be said for two international news agencies, Reuters and the AP, that used the work of these slain journalists for whom, one naively assumes, they should feel a duty of care.

Apparently not. Both swiftly reported without qualification the Israeli military’s ever-changing excuse for targeting the hospital: that the Golani Brigade was targeting a camera used by Hamas. This provides no explanation for the second strike 15 minutes after the first, which wiped out the journalists. In reporting this claim straight, as if Israel had the right to balance the assertion that the journalists were targeted with its own fabrication, Reuters and the AP offered no account of the fact that this “Hamas” camera could have indeed been the camera set up for Reuters to use as a live feed.

Media was also integral to the genocide of six million Jews during the Holocaust. Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels systematically dehumanised the Jews, justified their persecution, and secured public support for mass murder. The concentration camps compelled prisoners to send postcards home saying they were being treated well. Concerts were filmed in Theresienstadt, after which the entire crew was sent to Auschwitz.

Propaganda that Jews were being “resettled in the east” was critical to the Nazi regime’s attempts to disguise its “final solution” in the gas chambers. Today, Israeli media reports on negotiations with South Sudan as the destination for an “evacuation” of Palestinians in Gaza as if it were the most normal and humanitarian thing in the world.

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago

I kill two Khamas

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Was it a Hezbollah camera? Isis camera?

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I don't know that I can take seriously an opinion piece that's outraged that a news article repeated a statement by one of the parties in the story.

as if Israel had the right to balance the assertion that the journalists were targeted with its own fabrication

That's powerfully loaded language. It presupposes that it's a fabrication, which, although entirely likely (or a tangle of redefined words tantamount to fabrication) , is still biased. It's weighing two ultimately unsubstantiated claims against each other and saying only one is invalid.

Given that the linked AP article the author objects to spends significantly more time covering human rights condemnation of the attack, the method of the attack, and how the Israeli military comports itself than it does reporting what the Israeli military claimed as their motivation, I can only conclude they object to it being reported on at all.
Personally, I would like to know if they're claiming they targeted the journalists, as they have in the past, or if they're claiming something else.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It was a Reuters camera. It's patently absurd that Reuters uncritically repeated Israel's statement about it being a Hamas camera.

Neutrality is a great ideal to work towards in journalism, in that it can produce better discourse even if we don't actually achieve true objectivity. However, when you're literally involved in a conflict by virtue of your equipment and contractors being bombed and accused of being Hamas, then pretending to be objective about things is an utter farce

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

What to you would qualify as critical reporting? Ideally while remaining grounded in the objective.

I think reporting what they said their target was, and in the same report reporting that that isn't what they hit, that the camera has been there a while, that it's not unusual to have a camera in place like that, and that Israel was informed of the camera qualifies.
They can't objectively show the report is a lie, but they can provide the evidence you need to come to that conclusion.

Objectivity is not the same as neutrality. Both news outlets strive for objectivity, but I would say their coverage is not neutral at all, largely because they strive to report the facts as they are.

[–] BussyGyatt@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

it does not matter who they were targetting. they killed indiscriminately.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

Correct, and that's bad. It was also reported on by the news outlets being criticized in the same articles where they reported Israels claimed intention, next to how often they kill journalists, and more information about their method of targeting first responders.

While ethically it doesn't matter who they were targeting, it's still newsworthy. In the past they've openly admitted to targeting a journalist.