Skip Navigation

Posts
39
Comments
545
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • ChatGPT is allowed, but chocolate eggs with toys inside are supposed to be too dangerous? 🤔

  • What I meant was that my question wasn't about how to distinguish between reputable and unreliable sources – I think most Lemmy users are capable of doing that.

    I was more interested in how we can effectively and meaningfully contribute to countering the flood of misinformation on social media (such as Twitter or meta apps).

    The background to my question is the fact that this misinformation influences users' opinions. I think, the US is the best example of where that can lead. Unfortunately, there are similar trends in my home country. Since I don't want to be ruled by fascists, I thought I'd ask the community here what can be done.

    But apparently I didn't phrase the question very well.

  • What makes you think I couldn't tell the difference?

  • Well, my question was about how to counter the constant misinformation spread by influential people like Trump (there are people like him in pretty much every country) – that's why I mentioned other platforms, because Lemmy is completely irrelevant in this context due to its very limited reach.

  • Any examples?

  • So you think it's okay for the US president to spread misinformation? You really don't see a problem with that, even though you yourself talk about "information hygiene"?

  • Do you have any examples?

  • In Hitler's time, there was only radio, but Goebbels, his PR man, knew how to use it to great effect. His books are sometimes still read today in PR training courses because PR is just another word for propaganda, and Goebbels is considered one of the fathers of this discipline.

  • Most of the misinformation I regularly find on top are statements made by the US president or his administration – and these are news reports in an appropriate context with appropriate commentary by Lemmy users. Occasionally, very rarely, I have also seen misinformation about the US president, but I don't see that as much of a problem.

    Rather, I see it as a very serious problem that the US president himself and his administration are massively spreading misinformation. That is what my question refers to.

  • That's certainly a good point, but I'm less concerned with how to verify information than with how to counteract the constant flow of misinformation — especially on other platforms where misinformation is deliberately pushed, which is causing major problems in my home country alone.

  • Unfortunately, I believe that social media does influence people's decisions very much. If that weren't the case, criminals like Trump could never be elected president, and 20-25% of the people in my home country wouldn't vote for open Nazis.

    Nevertheless, thank you for your valuable contribution: In addition to technical possibilities, I am also interested in how to deal with people who do not accept rational arguments - the Socratic method is probably the best way to make a point with them.

  • I'm only on Lemmy, but I don't think my individual decision will make a difference—and unfortunately, I don't think anyone should realistically expect it to.

    I think anyone who is already here has recognized the problem.

  • But he certainly can raise prices by 1500% once this pedo thing is over — probably a Freudian slip — he will probably do everything humanly possible to increase prices by that percentage since the lobby offered him and his cronies good terms.

  • Deleted

    Dogwhistle

    Jump
  • I'm sorry, it just seemed to me that the majority of people are blowing this whistle and that it takes an extraterrestrial force to point out how absurd it all is.

    But I'm wrong—we have you. Thank you! ♥️

  • Deleted

    Dogwhistle

    Jump
  • Why is the somewhat reasonable character blue? Is he an alien telling us to get our timeline straight?

  • Trump cannot and will not lower drug prices. That's just another lie... Oh, how about the Eppstein files? He could certainly publish those, but he won't for obvious reasons – almost as obvious as the reasons for not lowering drug prices.

  • That's exactly why I'm asking. What patriotism is or should be, I can't answer, but I can say that what the self-proclaimed patriots in America are doing atm seems to me like the opposite of what this this strange concept should be about, because they are helping to cement an oligarchy - and that can't be in the interests of US citizens.

    Edit: Just to be clear: If you are a US citizen and disagree with the administration's policies, I would consider you a patriot – but I am probably the worst person to ask about this.

  • Yes, this pattern is also prevalent in Europe. That is precisely why the US should serve as a cautionary example. We still have a reasonably functioning media landscape, but that can change quickly here too.

  • Yes, it's sad, especially since the Guardian is a UK news outlet.