Not a fan of the prick any by any means but it really devalues the term "disinformation" when the first point mentioned is an unfalsifiable opinion. The rest seem okay though.
Below are five key disinformation narratives the CAA identified about the 2024 election on Chinese-language social media are views that are widely shared among US right-wing groups:
Trump is the only savior of the US, and today’s problems are because he is not in charge
Not a fan of the prick any by any means but it really devalues the term "disinformation" when the first point mentioned is an unfalsifiable opinion. The rest seem okay though.
It's possible that this is because that "narrative" is built around falsehoods. I'd be hard-pressed to summarize some of the disinformation in concrete ways myself. It's just so... Everywhere?
It's possible that this is because that "narrative" is built around falsehoods. I'd be hard-pressed to summarize some of the disinformation in concrete ways myself. It's just so... Everywhere?
Why does it matter if the claims are verifiable or not? The amplification any narrative to accomplish the goal of division seems to me to be relevant. The impossibility of verification doesn't...
Why does it matter if the claims are verifiable or not? The amplification any narrative to accomplish the goal of division seems to me to be relevant. The impossibility of verification doesn't seem to matter to the people taken in by it.
I don't necessarily think it's better to write unfalsifiable narrative propaganda, but it's definitely not right to call that "disinformation", as it makes it difficult to actually call out...
I don't necessarily think it's better to write unfalsifiable narrative propaganda, but it's definitely not right to call that "disinformation", as it makes it difficult to actually call out disinformation if it just means "political messaging I don't like".
Why, though? Claims of belief are persuasive to the people they are targeting, to the extent that amplifying such narratives might even be more effective at moving the needle than flat claims of...
Why, though? Claims of belief are persuasive to the people they are targeting, to the extent that amplifying such narratives might even be more effective at moving the needle than flat claims of verifiable fact (which won't be verified by the audience anyway).
The disinformation in such a narrative isn't in the substance of its message, but in making it appear that many more people hold the belief than actually do. If you insist that lies must be verifiable to be lies, then the real lie in this one is in who and how many are saying it.
I think it's foolish to call an unfalsifiable political message you disagree with "disinformation" because this quickly just gets used against every other unfalsifiable political message by those...
I think it's foolish to call an unfalsifiable political message you disagree with "disinformation" because this quickly just gets used against every other unfalsifiable political message by those who disagree with it. Is "Israel shouldn't bomb Palestinian civilians" disinformation too?
Part of media literacy is distinguishing between falsifiable factual claims as evidence and unfalsifiable beliefs or opinions. We shouldn't be totally chill with someone ignoring this distinction just because they're on "our side", because it's still poor media literacy to pretend these are identical, even if they're often used for the same purposes rhetorically.
You haven't addressed the point I was actually driving at, which is that the lie isn't the unverifiable belief, it's that the belief is being amplified by foreign, bad faith actors. The...
You haven't addressed the point I was actually driving at, which is that the lie isn't the unverifiable belief, it's that the belief is being amplified by foreign, bad faith actors. The disinformation is metatextual. Even if the statement made isn't itself necessarily disinformation, the fact that it's being put through the 21st-century equivalent of a bullhorn is.
I just don't think your narrow definition of disinformation is very realistic or useful.
This just doesn't meet any reasonable definition of "lie" to me. Foreign, bad faith actors can do propaganda without it being a lie. Heck, sometimes they can do that effectively just using the...
This just doesn't meet any reasonable definition of "lie" to me. Foreign, bad faith actors can do propaganda without it being a lie. Heck, sometimes they can do that effectively just using the truth. Why is the exact same unfalsifiable statement not a lie if my mother says it, but a lie if China pays someone to say it? You may take issue with my definition of disinformation (despite it being agreed upon by others), but your definition makes the word completely empty. We already have words that are more suitable to talk about what's going on here.
Suppose I were to buy up 1m Twitter sockpuppet accounts and have them repeat some variation of "I think stock in Acme Inc is going to go through the roof," in order to influence the stock price....
Suppose I were to buy up 1m Twitter sockpuppet accounts and have them repeat some variation of "I think stock in Acme Inc is going to go through the roof," in order to influence the stock price. By your definition, that wouldn't be stock manipulation–disinformation, in other words.
It's a statement of belief and thus not verifiable, so it doesn't meet your standard of disinformation, but that's not how the SEC and DoJ would look at it. They'd want to prosecute me immediately. It wouldn't matter if the statement could be perfectly acceptable for a single person to state as an opinion, it's the way the statement is amplified with the sockpuppet accounts that makes it a crime.
I have no problem accepting this scenario as disinformation, and I don't see how it's materially different from the scenario we're discussing. If you've got a favored definition for the word "disinformation," that's your own business, but I'd suggest you workshop it more.
You may take issue with my definition of disinformation (despite it being agreed upon by others) [...]
Yes. I'm sure many people are saying it. Many good people.
All I can say to your example is that something can be stock manipulation without being disinformation. You can manipulate stocks with true information, even. I don't think you're really coming to...
All I can say to your example is that something can be stock manipulation without being disinformation. You can manipulate stocks with true information, even. I don't think you're really coming to this conversation with any desire to actually understand what I think, and since I was initially just chiming in to agree with another commenter anyway, I am extra uninterested in continuing this discussion with you. Let's agree to disagree.
I do think I understand what you're driving at, for what that's worth. I just think it's a distinction without a difference. You have a narrow definition of disinformation that you don't think...
I do think I understand what you're driving at, for what that's worth. I just think it's a distinction without a difference. You have a narrow definition of disinformation that you don't think encompasses this sort of manipulation, but I think a broader definition that does is a better fit, and I don't see how using this broader definition dilutes or undermines its import in any meaningful way.
You haven't bothered to actually define the term except to say what it isn't, and even when edging up to definition, you fell back to "other people agree with me" without even bothering to support that claim. This alone is enough to show that we're not going to get anywhere, so we'll just chalk it up to a failed attempt at discussion and leave it there. They can't all be winners.
I don't think the degree of hostility you've come to this conversation with, particularly with the snide comments and insistence that I "haven't bothered to" do things in this discussion is...
I don't think the degree of hostility you've come to this conversation with, particularly with the snide comments and insistence that I "haven't bothered to" do things in this discussion is conducive to actually having a civil discussion on whether this distinction matters, in this case or in general. If you're actually interested in having reasonable discussions on Tildes, I'd ask that you approach them with more charity than that.
Not a fan of the prick any by any means but it really devalues the term "disinformation" when the first point mentioned is an unfalsifiable opinion. The rest seem okay though.
It's possible that this is because that "narrative" is built around falsehoods. I'd be hard-pressed to summarize some of the disinformation in concrete ways myself. It's just so... Everywhere?
Why does it matter if the claims are verifiable or not? The amplification any narrative to accomplish the goal of division seems to me to be relevant. The impossibility of verification doesn't seem to matter to the people taken in by it.
I don't necessarily think it's better to write unfalsifiable narrative propaganda, but it's definitely not right to call that "disinformation", as it makes it difficult to actually call out disinformation if it just means "political messaging I don't like".
Why, though? Claims of belief are persuasive to the people they are targeting, to the extent that amplifying such narratives might even be more effective at moving the needle than flat claims of verifiable fact (which won't be verified by the audience anyway).
The disinformation in such a narrative isn't in the substance of its message, but in making it appear that many more people hold the belief than actually do. If you insist that lies must be verifiable to be lies, then the real lie in this one is in who and how many are saying it.
I think it's foolish to call an unfalsifiable political message you disagree with "disinformation" because this quickly just gets used against every other unfalsifiable political message by those who disagree with it. Is "Israel shouldn't bomb Palestinian civilians" disinformation too?
Part of media literacy is distinguishing between falsifiable factual claims as evidence and unfalsifiable beliefs or opinions. We shouldn't be totally chill with someone ignoring this distinction just because they're on "our side", because it's still poor media literacy to pretend these are identical, even if they're often used for the same purposes rhetorically.
You haven't addressed the point I was actually driving at, which is that the lie isn't the unverifiable belief, it's that the belief is being amplified by foreign, bad faith actors. The disinformation is metatextual. Even if the statement made isn't itself necessarily disinformation, the fact that it's being put through the 21st-century equivalent of a bullhorn is.
I just don't think your narrow definition of disinformation is very realistic or useful.
This just doesn't meet any reasonable definition of "lie" to me. Foreign, bad faith actors can do propaganda without it being a lie. Heck, sometimes they can do that effectively just using the truth. Why is the exact same unfalsifiable statement not a lie if my mother says it, but a lie if China pays someone to say it? You may take issue with my definition of disinformation (despite it being agreed upon by others), but your definition makes the word completely empty. We already have words that are more suitable to talk about what's going on here.
Suppose I were to buy up 1m Twitter sockpuppet accounts and have them repeat some variation of "I think stock in Acme Inc is going to go through the roof," in order to influence the stock price. By your definition, that wouldn't be stock manipulation–disinformation, in other words.
It's a statement of belief and thus not verifiable, so it doesn't meet your standard of disinformation, but that's not how the SEC and DoJ would look at it. They'd want to prosecute me immediately. It wouldn't matter if the statement could be perfectly acceptable for a single person to state as an opinion, it's the way the statement is amplified with the sockpuppet accounts that makes it a crime.
I have no problem accepting this scenario as disinformation, and I don't see how it's materially different from the scenario we're discussing. If you've got a favored definition for the word "disinformation," that's your own business, but I'd suggest you workshop it more.
Yes. I'm sure many people are saying it. Many good people.
All I can say to your example is that something can be stock manipulation without being disinformation. You can manipulate stocks with true information, even. I don't think you're really coming to this conversation with any desire to actually understand what I think, and since I was initially just chiming in to agree with another commenter anyway, I am extra uninterested in continuing this discussion with you. Let's agree to disagree.
I do think I understand what you're driving at, for what that's worth. I just think it's a distinction without a difference. You have a narrow definition of disinformation that you don't think encompasses this sort of manipulation, but I think a broader definition that does is a better fit, and I don't see how using this broader definition dilutes or undermines its import in any meaningful way.
You haven't bothered to actually define the term except to say what it isn't, and even when edging up to definition, you fell back to "other people agree with me" without even bothering to support that claim. This alone is enough to show that we're not going to get anywhere, so we'll just chalk it up to a failed attempt at discussion and leave it there. They can't all be winners.
I don't think the degree of hostility you've come to this conversation with, particularly with the snide comments and insistence that I "haven't bothered to" do things in this discussion is conducive to actually having a civil discussion on whether this distinction matters, in this case or in general. If you're actually interested in having reasonable discussions on Tildes, I'd ask that you approach them with more charity than that.
Edit: you know what? Now I actually am getting angry, so never mind. Not worth it.
We're number 1!
I just... Yeah. This is disappointing but unsurprising