this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
149 points (97.5% liked)

Fediverse vs Disinformation

1430 readers
389 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 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/32644220

More than a hundred BBC employees have written a letter to the director general, Tim Davie, complaining that the Corporation has become a mouthpiece for Israel. It was also signed by 300 other journalists and media professionals: one of them was yours truly. The BBC employees, as you would expect, are all anonymous, because otherwise they would face grave consequences to their careers.

The letter says:

We’re writing to express our concerns over opaque editorial decisions and censorship at the BBC on the reporting of Israel/Palestine. We believe the refusal to broadcast the documentary ‘Gaza: Medics Under Fire’ is just one in a long line of agenda driven decisions. It demonstrates, once again, that the BBC is not reporting “without fear or favour” when it comes to Israel.

It goes on to note that the decision not to broadcast the investigation was taken by BBC management despite the content being signed off in accordance with BBC guidelines and editorial policy, which it says “Appears to be a political decision”, adding that the BBC response shows the organisation “is crippled by the fear of being perceived as critical of the Israeli government.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frenchfryenjoyer@lemmings.world 26 points 20 hours ago (5 children)

this is why I don't take the BBC seriously for anything to do with Israel/Palestine. the BBC is also state run media and the UK doesn't recognise Palestine which is shitty

[–] Kobibi@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I think it's important to note that the BBC isn't 'state run media', if only to highlight the ways that it's more intertwined with the state than it should be.

The government officially holds some sway in the appointment of its chair, which is kinda sus. But the main issue I think is this more unofficial 'revolving door' appointment of it's heads and high level figures

They all seem to come from ex-government and business positions, very much from the same class and background as most of our political leaders

And as such, this same pro-status-quo worldview is present. Add to this that there are clearly many successions made to retain access to important figures..

The BBC in some spheres clearly feels able to critiscise the government, even quite harshly sometimes. But in other cases - notably gaza and climate change, activism etc - waves the same stick around

For my money it's not so much that the government tells the BBC how to report on this, per se, but that the editorial leaders of the BBC are of the same worldview and agenda of the Government leaders.

Although yes, there probably have been conversations over lunch at clubs and the vague threat of government interference if the BBC goes too far astray...

But above all, I think the BBC is against rocking the boat, and the boat in this case is neoliberalism

load more comments (4 replies)