this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
96 points (99.0% liked)

Fediverse vs Disinformation

1387 readers
1 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 [documentary] production company's founder, Ben de Pear, said earlier this week the BBC had "utterly failed" and that journalists were "being stymied and silenced".

BBC News understands the decision to shelve the documentary was taken on Thursday, following public comments by De Pear at the Sheffield Documentary Festival, and another of the film's directors, journalist Ramita Navai, who appeared on Radio 4's Today discussing the war in Gaza.

Navai told the programme Israel had "become a rogue state that's committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing and mass murdering Palestinians". Israel has denied accusations of war crimes and genocide in Gaza.

TLDR: BBC refuses to run documentary about doctors in Gaza they comissioned because someone involved it is says Israel is committing ethnic cleansing. I think this is one of the most obvious examples on how biased the BBC is towards this situation.

all 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You can’t be “impartial” when it comes to genocide. What Netanyahu is doing is a crime against humanity. Period.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Wow. Just standing with humanity totally uncritically! Like you've never even considered the virtues of netanyahu's position!

[–] suzune@ani.social 6 points 3 days ago

They're concerned they could appear impartial?

[–] knowone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 days ago

"In other news, [insert fash talking point]..."

[–] zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

And I was thinking BBC was one of the most neutral news sources. But then again, regarding this topic, I was even disappointed by The Guardian. I do not trust them any longer.

[–] knowone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

They're "neutral" in the sense that they'll give right wing politicians some light criticism when their corruption is no longer easily hidden at all. You only need look at this image they edited of Corbyn and used while he was Labour leader to see how "impartial" they are to left wing politicians.

[–] Mrkawfee@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

The BBC needs to go. It is working to whitewash genocide. It's reputation will never recover

Look, im sorry, but failing to ignore genocide just isn't objective.

Im sorry. Maybe you never went to journalism school, but clearly someone at the bbc did, so maybe leave the big boy decisions up to the adults, hm?

Besides, how will we kill enough children for a bountiful harvest without israel's help? Global warming isn't making this any easier, you know.