305
Russian and Chinese Bots Fueling Online ‘Violence’ After Charlie Kirk Shooting
(www.thedailybeast.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2025
305 points (97.2% liked)
Fediverse vs Disinformation
1692 readers
164 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:
- No disinformation
- Posts must be relevant to the topic of astroturfing, propaganda and/or disinformation
Related websites
- EU vs Disinfo
- FactCheck.org
- PolitiFact
- Snopes
- Media Bias / Fact Check
- PEN America
- Media Matters
- FAIR
Matrix chat links
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
None of those happen at all. They never happen without the "threat of force"
Whether implied or actually used. All power flows forth from the threat of force. If the threat of force doesn't exist then there is no reason for bad actors to negotiate at all. They can just roll over anyone they want.
The absence of the Threat of Force is why protest in this country doesn't work. Because those in power know that its toothless. Look to Europe and Asia. To South America. When people protest there the politicians perk up because they know that the protest isn't the end. It's the prelude to God only knows what. Riots. Fires. Farmers dumping tens of thousands of pounds of manure on parliament. Etcetera. Their protest isn't toothless. They have not been taught since birth that "violence is always wrong". They will burn shit. They won't start with burning shit. But that is invariably a potential outcome if protest is ignored.
Completely agree with more or less all of that. In particular:
Yes, we should definitely be doing more of that. And, I think it is particularly interesting that most of the suspicious accounts I observed on Lemmy during the beginning of the "No Kings" protests were super against the idea of getting organized and going out in the streets as a prelude and preparation for things like that. They were saying things like that particular protests were a "false flag," extensively nail biting about the unsafe nature of getting out to protest, that they were going to sit this one out, stuff of that nature.
I wonder why they were so against organized vigorous disobedience, and now they're so in favor of random sudden violence against leaders. Almost as if one leads to much different outcomes than the other, and they're trying to mold things specifically towards one of the outcomes and not the other.
Well, if you assume any action wherein someone loses and someone wins is violence... sure. Economic sanctions? Violence. Political action? Violence. Organized non-violent protest? Better believe that's violence.
There are some people who only respond to violence because they act with violence... but by no means is that the only thing any bad actor ever does.
And yet they have to keep doing it. Over and over and over. Almost like it doesn't actually fix things, just look at France. They've been through six republics and they still haven't had lasting positive momentum. They've had violent protests almost non-stop about just about every issue there's been in the last decade or more... and yet things haven't really been fixed. The people in power still do what they think is best, often to the benefit of themselves and the detriment of the rest of the populace.
Even if violence can promote change... it doesn't promote solutions.
You have to be at the negotiating table to form a solution. And you can't get there without violence. Implicit or exercised. You need it to reqch the negotiating table and you need it to back your play.
If you aren't at the table. You're on the menu.