this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2025
349 points (98.6% liked)

Fediverse vs Disinformation

1461 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 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

The liberal establishment's war on the New York City mayoral candidate reflects panic over a growing left challenge to Zionist orthodoxy and the mainstreaming of Palestine solidarity

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Binturong@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Actually it's capital. But it's true that Liberalism is the wiggly fun-house slide to capitalism and fascism no doubt.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Liberalism is capitalism. They are intrinsically and indivisiblely linked. The liberal revolutions were capitalist revolutions.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 23 hours ago

He said capital, not capitalism. Aka, those with money.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Liberalism is defined by advocates of guaranteed human rights and freedoms so long as those freedoms don't infringe upon others'.

So, no, actually. None of the stuff you said.

[–] vala@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

This is really more neo-liberalism. Classical liberalism is pretty much just "capitalism > kings".

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago

I mean, I definitely wouldn't ally myself with Kings, which is unfortunately a nonironic stance of modern conservative parties like the CCP and GOP.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Liberalism is defined by advocates of guaranteed human rights and freedoms so long as those freedoms don’t infringe upon others’.

And then liberals turn around and sell weapons they know will be used for genocide.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago

Not to mention the whole, you know, slavery thing.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

The only rights liberalism cares about are private property rights.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, you must be the new owner of Webster and Oxford dictionaries.

Check it out, guys! Its the dude who decides the meaning of words. Round of applause.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Neither liberalism nor neoliberalism can be grasped coherently without talking about capitalism and democracy. If liberalism names the political ideology aligned to the historical emergence of “free market” capitalism and Western-style representative democracy, neoliberalism signifies a particular regime of liberalism, capitalism, and democracy that has been globalized since the 1970s, in the form of an active state promotion of market and competition principles that critics see as antithetical to democracy.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -3 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Sucks for them that they're PhDs and they still confuse words like Liberalism and Laissez Faire.

The dictionary definition has not changed, this is like calling China communist or the USSR socialist republic, or calling the US Republican Party... well, Republicans.

It's just propoganda made to appear in a slightly better light when in truth opposing liberalism is just opposing human rights.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

So either multiple people with PhDs that have written extensively on the subject are correct and you didn't comprehend their point, or you, who failed to comprehend even the wiki page on Liberalism, know more.

It's pretty obvious which is the case when you read through the article, even more so when you read when laissez faire is mentioned multiple times.

I have you tagged as a Zionist from previous conversations, you got no say on the concept of human rights when you've repeatedly defended that type of fascism in the past.

[–] Binturong@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 hours ago

"The dictionary definition has not changed, this is like calling China communist or the USSR socialist republic, or calling the US Republican Party… well, Republicans."

Yeah, I mean you're here stomping your feet over semantics by leaning on a dictionary definition rather than acknowledging that all your criticisms of other political systems absolutely applies to your defense of Liberalism. In so far as we're exist only in theory, the things you said about Liberalism are true (according to the source that you didn't cite), but in the actual world and as applied through history, Liberalism simply isn't what that definition claims anymore, or Liberals aren't Liberals despite their claims. Both can be true.

P.S. you're bad at this defense thing.