this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2025
693 points (81.2% liked)

memes

10958 readers
4694 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Disinformation.

TikTok has been under control of the State Dept for years, since TikTok transferred custody of US servers to Oracle. The ban is to force a sale to a US competitor, and decrease transparency on censorship activities, especially regarding Palestine and pro-communism material.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/tiktok-chinese-trojan-horse-run-by-state-department-officials/284353/

[–] VerticaGG@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago

This.

Not a big fan of Tik Tok but fuck this fedposting bootlicker OP.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

When you can’t disprove the content, attack the source.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There's no reasonable way for a single person to point out every single flaw in a conspiratorial website. The whole article is a gish-gallop; so much misinformation that even if I disproved 90% of the primary points, people would still latch on to the 10% that I hadn't had time to disprove, and say, see?, they were right! (That's assuming that they even accept counterclaims as being sufficient in the first place.)

Paying attention to your sources and not using bad ones is one of the first, most basic principles of media literacy. Failing to adhere to this basic principle is precisely how you get Q-anon.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

How about disprove just one thing? Can you handle that?

Wild that you’re attempting to speak with authority, when you’re the one being most vague and refusing to provide an ounce of material to support your argument.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't have to. It's a shitty source that's making extraordinary claims, so it's on them to provide the extraordinary proof.

I could make any number of bullshit claims, like, say, Nazis built a moon base shortly before the end of WWII, and the inability of the allies to find Hitler's body proves that he didn't commit suicide in a bunker in Berlin, and you would quite rightly insist that I give you a lot of solid evidence. The article does none of that.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Did you actually read it? There’s links throughout.

How is them pointing out the work history of the government staff installed on this an “extraordinary claim”?

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

::sigh::

The fact that someone has worked for the gov't in the past does not prove in any way, shape, or form, that a particular company is controlled by the gov't. My ex-spouse used to work for the US State Dept, and now is an accountant at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd; does that mean that Deloitte is a US gov't asset? I have an uncle that was in the diplomatic corps, and now owns his own business; is his business directly controlled by the US gov't too?

Roughly 3M people are directly employed by the US fed. gov't at any given time, in a national of roughly 345M people. So no, it's not that unexpected that someone with high level management experience would also end up working as a high-level manager at corporation after they left gov't service. (And why would someone leave the gov't? Because when you compare pay rates for comparable levels of responsibility, the gov't always comes out far behind.)

This is basic media literacy stuff.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

You lack a basic understanding of how the revolving door works to progress digital censorship. And we’re not talking about just any government position- these are spooks.