False and misleading posts about the Ukraine conflict continue to go viral on major social media platforms, as Russia’s invasion of the country extends beyond 500 days.
False and misleading posts about the Ukraine conflict continue to go viral on major social media platforms, as Russia’s invasion of the country extends beyond 500 days.
Reality.
deleted by creator
Almost guaranteed to be trolls, paid or of the useful idiot variety. I’ve seen them for the last week or so, as Lemmy got big enough to be on their radar now.
Here’s a rundown on how paid trolls operate. They have quotas of thousands of posts per day each:
https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-troll-slayer-went-undercover-at-a-troll-factory-2019-3?IR=T
You may have noticed some familiar names in the article. It’s also worth mentioning that China’s 50 cent army is estimated at making 400 million+ posts per year, and that Harvard estimate was from something like 2016. Common sense solution, if it smells like a rat, treat it like a rat until proven otherwise.
You know you’ve hit the big times when the russian trolls show up.
I would not be surprised.
its tankies
please stop using this stupid and derogatory term. There are many kinds of leftists that try to make a nuanced analysis of past socialist experiments. While I consider myself a leftist who takes kindly to socialist countries past trials and tribulations, I for one can’t fathom why so many marxists choose to support a reactionary regime that frequently flirts with fascism. Still, the word “tankie” is just a strawman that liberals use to shame leftists that dare to conduct real analysis of socialist history. It has lost all meaning and nowadays stands as the liberal version of “woke”.
okay we might agree with most stuff but c’mon u know that silly libs always use that term to shut up discourse on marxist’s perspectives. we might be in the know but it’s confusing to most people
with the conversation being about support for russia i figure contextll clue folks in
Those of us who don’t live in the western world take a different view of world events. It does not make us trolls.
For example, when the NordStream exploded, we were told that Russia did it. It was considered disinformation by the western authorities to question this. It turned out a year later it was a group of Ukrainians.
Why are you just making things up and spreading misinformation?
Here is the original BBC News coverage from the time (unedited, you can check on the Wayback machine).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63297085
Meanwhile UKrainian involvement you cite as a fact, is from a NY Times article quoting US intelliegence sources. It’s possibly true but has never been stood-up
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64877979
German government knew that Ukrainians blew it up.
Western media pushed the narrative that Russia blew up NordStream because it fit their prejudices.
Here’s misinformation for you.
Fronm anyone interested in the sources, that screenshot is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage
It does not support the fact that the factthe “German government knew” anything - rather that there was a police investigation into evidence. Once again “Western Media” is a broad brush, but the coverage I see at the time certainly explored the idea that the Russians may have destoyed the pipeline as one possibility - at the same time point out that there was uncertainty. This is not “pushing a narrative” particularly - it’s trying to explain a mystery.
As a wise person once said: “things are usually not as black and white. People who complain about misinformation/disinformation are usually guilty of it themselves.”
Western media pushed “Russia destroyed Nordstream” narrative to generate support for the war in Europe. There was never any reason to think that Russia would destroy their own pipeline. People who thought otherwise are gullible people that were misled by a very successful misinformation campaign.
Which are these Western Media that pushed it as an undisputed fact? Can you give any mainstream examples?
Some examples across the political spectrum:
Of those, the Wallstreet Journal is the one that appears to be guilty of factual inaccuracy, as far as I see. NATO never formally accused Russia, from what I can tell. The Fox piece - yes thats pushing the opinion - but I would point out that it’s an opinion piece, by a guest writer - not a news piece. Fox, also ran pieces saying that it was a pro-Ukranian group.
The BBC’s report that you linked to seems like worthwhile journalism, reporting on an investigation by Nordic public service broadcasters that Russian naval vessels with transceivers turned off were in the area.
But quotes from that article include:
and