World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
What letter are you being blinkered by?
Zuckerberg told Rogan: "The background here is that the FBI came to us - some folks on our team - and was like 'hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump that's similar to that'."
From your link:
Directly contradicting your point. Yet you used it as evidence of your point. Can you answer me why one would cite a article that contradicts their point by cherry picking part of it that doesn't contradict their point?
Although, let's also laugh at the absurdity of claiming that because Zuckerberg said it on the joe Rogan show...well, that means it's absolutely true. Lol
But to answer your question, most people when they whine about people "lying" about the laptop being Russian propaganda are referring to the warning letter by ex spies:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000
Directly supporting. Look at the timeline
Laptop repair owner asks FBI why they haven't done anything.
Says if FBI isn't doing anything he will shortly release the copy he has.
FBI warn everyone that "Russian Propaganda" is about to be released.
Hunter Laptop story drops.
Everyone assumes this is the "Russian Propaganda" so all news and discussion is censored
FBI does not reveal that there is no "Russian Propaganda" related to that story.
FBI does not reveal laptop is genuine
FBI does not admit they've sat on evidence for 9 months and done nothing.
No. I'm accusing the FBI of media manipulation and misinformation.
But it is hilarious that you are trying to invent evidence using what professional misinformation creators didn't say in a published letter which, we now know, was complete misinformation.
The main problem with misinformation is who gets to decide what is fact and what is fiction.
You still havent proven this. Did you read the letter i posted? This is where the whole "Russian disinformation" public perception comes from, not from some questionable timeline where the FBI plants some vague seeds and the public is smart enough to make the connection.
And this is the point. They warned Facebook about the disinformation, and Facebook saw that the laptop fit the pattern. Maybe this is because it was Russian disinformation, which is why the FBI never corrected it. Although, there are more reasons why the FBI wouldn't hop in, such as it's not their job to correct public opinion.
Your letter is not relevant. We are discussing why Facebook immediately started censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story published on the 14th October 2020. This has absolutely nothing to do with a disinformation letter released 5 days later on the 19th.
What are you questioning?
Referenced directly by Zuckerberg as the specific reason for censorship.
No, the Facebook content team were duped into connecting the laptop story to Russian propaganda.
OK. I'd love to hear you arguing this. At what point were the Russians involved in repairing Hunter Biden's laptop?
It's not the FBI's job to run PR interference for a politician's son, but that's exactly what they did. Court documents prove they had foreknowledge and proof that Hunter's laptop was genuine.
Absolutely relevant because it explains how the laptop could be real and that it is still part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Of course the public can only respond to a story after it has been released.
Again, at no point have you established as a fact that it was not Russian propaganda. But that sentence was meant to be taken as a whole, contradicting your claim that the public misconception about it was due to FBI planting the seeds.
Lol I gave you a letter of a bunch of intelligence officially pointing out how it has the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign. I don't I know what the truth is, you're the one maintaining you know for sure it is not, without providing any evidence other than "the laptop is his" which we agree is not in dispute, but leaves a ton of other questions opened.
Again, read the fucking letter.
We are discussing Facebook censoring (incorrectly identified) misinformation.
The response letter of ex spies had nothing do to with Facebook's actions, which were actually based on misleading FBI warnings.
You want me to prove a negative? Ok. No russians were involved in fixing Hunter's laptop.
I made no such claim. In fact the opposite is true. The lack of public communication by the FBI about the origins of the laptop story is what is damaging.
None of which were true, because it has been proven in court via serial numbers that the laptop is genuine. Claims of Russian propaganda are pure misinformation.
We agree this is true, so how then do the Russians fit into your conspiracy theory?
Again, the letter was sent 5 days after censorship began. It is not relevant.
Again, you've yet to actually establish that this is the case.
Again, it explains how even if the laptop is real, that it could still be part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't make this go away.
No, you've repeatedly claimed we know it's not Russia disinformation, which is a positive assertion.
It's right in your timeline.
Holy shit I can't believe you still haven't read the letter. Amazing.
See Zuckerberg's statement
Nothing raised in that letter is relevant. There was no hacking. E-mails have been independently verified. The story is independent of Giuliani.
There is absolutely no evidence of Russian involvement between the point that the laptop was submitted for repair in April 2019 and the FBI subpoenaing the laptop in December 2019.
The FBI suggesting to facebook and twitter that the laptop was Russian Propaganda is pure misinformation.
I'm not even sure he said what you're claiming he said, but regardless are we really saying "well, zuckerberg said it must be true!"? Please tell me we're not there.
Your language is so tricky. I wonder why. Yes, some emails have been verified. But not all.
Again, tricky language. There are questions about how it got there at all, and there are chain of custody questions too. So sure, if they planted it, there is no evidence of their involvement after doing so.
Except, again, according to the article you have posted and referenced multiple times, Zuckerberg says the FBI never said anything about the laptop. You seem to be picking and choosing when to believe Zuckerberg, conveniently when it suits your conclusion.
In a separate situation, the FBI warned us about a potential Russian disinformation operation about the Biden family and Burisma in the lead up to the 2020 election. That fall, when we saw a New York Post story reporting on corruption allegations involving then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's family, we sent that story to fact-checkers for review and temporarily demoted it while waiting for a reply. It's since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn't have demoted the story.
Well, he wrote that in a public letter to the House Judiciary committee. Let's see the FBI disagree or arrest him for misinformation.
The damaging ones have. In particular the "10% for the big guy" email is genuine.
Notice the language here, he says "the reporting" was not disinformation, nothing about whether the laptop itself was part of any disinformation campaign. You've been very careful with your language, it's surprising that you can't see this deliberate use of language to sidestep any actual statement about the the laptop itself.
So we agree that they haven't all been verified, exposing what was obfuscated in your claim.
And why have you abandoned the central theme of your claim that the FBI pressured them about the laptop? Again it appears you believe zuck when he kind of says something that confirms your point, but when he says something that contradicts it, you just ignore it.
What? If reporting the laptop contents is not misinformation then the laptop contents are not misinformation.
My claim that the FBI deliberately mislead Twitter and Facebook was detailed above with accompanying evidence. You've brought nothing new to contradict that claim.