How odd, there's no mention of the campaigns to falsely deny that hunter biden's laptop was real and that there was us-funded gain-of-function research on coronavirises that had been farmed out to the Wuhan lab.
The current Whitehouse is actually a great source of misinformation. My favorite being the tweet to push back on inflation that a conspicuously arranged 4th of July cookout was $0.16 cheaper than last year.
Media outlets reporting on disinformation, as if they were neutral observers rather active propagators, is another method on how disinformation really works.
Our information ecosystem is truly poisoned at this stage, certainly not helped by a parade of "journalists" that see it as their job to correct the thinking of the unwashed masses versus delivering the truth as best they can approximate. Not that it was perfect years ago, but many folks see their job as that of an activist or even an agent of power. Mix in a dying media business model, and that desperation can get pretty ugly and have real negative effects on society.
And there is a real benefit to be had (for some) when no one can trust what they hear or think. It seems like a great time to be a bad actor.
The new part is the lack of shame. Nobody is withdrawing stories that have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been incorrect. The transition from professional to propagandist has meant that admitting mistakes isn't a point of pride, but a point of weakness.
They just move on, and act like the thing that they were haranguing the country about 24 hours a day last year is old news that you should get over in order to pay attention to the new thing that they demand you trust them about but offer no evidence or argument for, other than "anonymous administration officials", quotes from politicians and ex-generals, statements from lobbyists, and insane-sounding spokespeople for nonprofits indirectly funded by the government or entities that have a direct interest in the outcome.
edit: The NYT has always been somewhat of an exception to this, because they actually did think of themselves as "the" newspaper of record, and know that they will be graded retroactively on actual lies. But the only person punished for Iraq was Judith Miller. The lesson was that there are no consequences for lying continuously, the consequences come from admitting it.
The Times, at least a few years back, had a quite frequent habit of using phrases such as "sources say" or "according to sources" or "people familiar with the matter." It wasn't always like that.
Some of that is fine as people sometimes would like to remain anonymous and have the trust of the publication, journalist, and readers. Sure, many touchy stories are important and people can give quotes on background. But that can't become a consistent habit without, at some point, providing better attribution when a string of stories bear some relation.
I've cut back on the Times for the most part due to my issues with "sources say," but maybe they've improved.
The way it works is that the government or a billionaire (or both in partnership) completely though indirectly fund a dozen nonprofits that push their own current agenda. They also pump money into universities, or into individual projects run by people important within universities, in order to endow "The Freedom Chair for Injustice Studies" or some equally vapid shit. They then generate papers through the universities to support their agenda, and use the nonprofit to write press releases, that then are published in media outlets that will publish any rich man's claim, such as the NYT or WP, and other outlets that they have partial or complete ownership of.
This generates enough bullshit smoke to nominally justify a federal investigation, which they use to harass anyone who disagrees with them, and threaten their businesses or jobs. The combination of active investigations and 10 different stories in every paper every day about "potential dangers," and 24/7 coverage of the non-issue, gives politicians enough cover to pass laws against expressing opinions against the interests of the people who pay, and other laws for more surveillance to make sure no one has a wrong opinion secretly.
Eventually you get an Economist article explaining how the Chinese are poisoning America's youth against clean coal through Tiktok.
> I do wonder how many of these comments are disinformation bots
None. HN is too small for that to make any sense.
> trying to undermine the tech communities faith in established media
I'm usually in the media's camp, but like a sibling comment mentioned, "the media did that just fine themselves." It's too temping for them to try to use their power to try to tip the scales in politics, and every time they do that, people loose a little faith in them (though weighted to the side they're acting against).
The long-term end result of things like Rathergate, the stuff around Hunter Biden's laptop, innumerable more subtle things, and a frequently hectoring tone, is that too many people will not mourn the passing of the media (as they should), or are actively rooting for its destruction.
Yesterday and today I was battling two guys who think that viruses are fake, held my ground until one gave up and the other one switched to insults, then an actual scientist showed up. It's annoying and really hard work to keep asking questions until they don't make sense anymore.
The first one said viruses don't exist. 4 Million+ papers on google.scholar are completely dismissed as evidence.
The second one say, viruses are just poison and can be treated as such.
What I've noticed is a tendency to just replace the meaning of words itself. Like Virus means poison in greek, so that's what it is.
The sources of their stuff are usually some anti-semitic right wing-websites, seemingly and it's the same thing that the left does with all that inclusive language.
Telegram channel, it just feel like it's important to hold ground when meeting someone like that. I'm German and in 1940 the nazis took over because the majority stayed silent and whatever battle was going on politically, they just stood with the victor back then.
You don't directly spew disinformation. Instead, you find the craziest but sane sounding nut you can, and donate anonymously, or via proxies, to whatever funding methods they have.
Then when they start a nonprofit, or grow in other ways you donate there too.
You give the crazy cat lady a super loud voice, and all the freedom and time to express it.
Disinformation isn't as important as just "crazy".
Looking at the rotting tail of the fish when then head stinks is missing the point.
Sicence, the temple of truth, has rotted its own foundation. The reproducibility crisis that started in psychology turned into the President of Harvard being caught plagiarizing.
Meanwhile we have plenty of fair science that gets swallowed by ego, or stolen from its creators by their "betters" (In a shock to no one, a bunch of marginalized women are mixed in there).
Disinformation will flourish as long as the foundations of information is built on a marsh.
I was thinking the same - high-quality content from across the web is increasingly paywalled, while low-quality free content flourishes. Only being able to afford to subscribe to a small number of sources keeps you inside the same echo chamber.
By mainstream media losing credibility in an online age and being unable to reinvent itself, thus grasping for correct-sounding thought terminating cliches such as "disinformation is on the rise", with no substantiation?
And, published by the outlet that has claimed China is near about collapsing just soon since 1990. The most credible MSM outlet there is.
Reading Twitter, or YouTube comments, or FT comments or any comments section, is pretty much the most pointless thing to do these days unless you want to marinate your brain in Russian/Chinese/Israeli/far right wing disinformation. There is far left disinformation too but that is usually the Russians or Chinese co-opting the political left, which seems to be really effective. For instance Jill Stein more or less parrots Russian propaganda.
To me it's fairly obvious but I know some people just look at whats the most prevalent view and put weight in it. The paid trolls are not very sophisticated, they're rigid and repetitive, make numerous cultural mistakes, even as they claim they are American/European/the victim/the perpetrator, but they are legion.
Comment sections should have a warning these days: "For entertainment purposes only, do not base anything important on what you read here".
This comment of yours is weird to me because you’ve taken a very politically slanted perspective.
Seems more likely that you haven’t considered that you are less likely the notice the disinformation that you agree with.
I’m saying this as someone who cannot possibly be construed as “far right” at all. I just think you should consider your own perspective a bit more before you claim that “everyone is the problem, but of course when we do it it’s a Russian operation” should set of alarm bells.
Whats my political slant? This is just what I've experienced.
Those on the hard right very much have this problem, eg see the Trump campaign, and feel no need to even loosely reference logic or rationality, let alone the truth.
And your comment reflects the right's sensitivity to it.
I'm certainly not a tool of the left, they're probably the stupidest of the bunch because they've been so easily co-opted by the Russian and Chinese with anti-war nonsense, especially the notion that Ukraine or the US are responsible for, or in any control of, a war of someone else's conquest.
But I haven't identified anyone. I've said disinformation is widespread and has certain characteristics. Somehow you take from that I'm just taring people I'm disagreeing with.
Your knee-jerk dismissal of what I've written is exactly what you're accusing me of, so that doesn't help with your credibility.
Those talk that about "disinformation" do so to assume some moral high-ground. The reasonable ones assume all the information out there is hostile and seeks to influence them. Because that's precisely how human interaction works. It's for the individual to discern the quality of information.
The patronizing attitude towards philosophy of epistemology is truly baffling. As if one is able to make such vast statements.
Yeah, that's nonsense, the moralizing is entirley yours. Some information is obviously from a single source with an obvious agenda devoid of normal logic that ignores all evidence. I give the characteristics that identify it.
Of course some people will evaluate all information with critical thinking but they are not the majority, and most can be influenced merely by repetition or the illusion of consensus or something near it.
Although correct, totalitarian political movements all look much the same, left or right.
I was going to post something about communist uprisings but they seemed in a different category, ie openly violent and oppressive, rather than the insidiousness of disinformation.
> And, yes, the political left is demonstrably still participating.
Unless you're talking about China or something, that's a bit rich.
The issue is not about disinformation as such. Who controls the flow of disinformation? Media, of course. When media moans about the rise of disinformation, it says that they can't control the disinformation the way the-powers-that-be want to.
They ultimately serve the same goal. It's a distinction without a difference between "highbrow" articles and algorithmic treats meant to reinforce a certain worldview. One feels more virtuous to consume.
It's hard to imagine a place that has more disinformation than Fox News. I'm sure they exist somewhere, but Fox News really takes the cake when it comes to straight up lying and disinformation.
CNN is honestly just as bad as Fox and the only reason they get away with it is a significant portion of the media also has a heavy left bias so it's less noticeable.
The world is always ending, $CURRENT_THING is the most important thing ever, of the week.
I have a family member obsessed with CNN, has it streamed on multiple televisions around the house at all times. Its quite funny watching his viewpoints flip-flop depending on the current news cycle and what CNN is focusing on at any given time.
Pretty soon here he's probably gonna hassle me about getting another booster, (nameless) experts say they're so safe and effective after all.
