#and that there's intentional misinformation/no information about elections

[awkward-teabag]

After every (American) election, there's always a bunch of posts going around exposing psyops or pointing out how there were posts on this site designed to get people to not vote blue.

And in the lead up to every (American) election, there's a bunch of posts being reblogged that are clearly either psyops or manipulative posts that tell people it's perfectly okay for them not to vote at all.

Like, there's history going back years on this hellsite where the alt-right intentionally tried to undermine or indoctrinate people so they get/stay in power. History a lot of y'all know of or were even there for and saw go down in real time.

But sure, be uncritical of what you reblog, don't bother looking at the source website, or just put things out there without caveats or nuance.

[thebreakfastgenie]

It is extremely disturbing how many posts I see claiming that Roe v. Wade was overturned on Biden's watch and blaming him and the Democratic Party for it. It's disturbing on a number of levels.

First, it was Trump and Bush-appointed justices who handed down the Dobbs decision. This is a flagrant example of blaming Democrats for things Republicans did, and not coincidentally is one of the the most widely felt differences between the two parties. As a result, it's usually the first example Democrats and their allies point to; this misappropriation suggests a deliberate attempt to undercut that fact.

Secondly, and related to the first point, it obfuscates who the real enemy is, and I am comfortable using word "enemy" to describe the Republican Party because of the policies they advocate and enact. The truth is that states controlled by the Republican Party were where the effects of Dobbs are most severely felt, while states controlled by the Democratic Party are passing laws to protect abortion. It is important to know which party opposes abortion and which party supports it. If the Republicans gain control of the House, Senate, and White House, they will pass a national abortion ban, as they have done at the state level in several places.

Thirdly, blaming Biden for Dobbs demonstrates a very concerning lack of understanding of how the government functions. The judiciary is its own branch of government; judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. It doesn't matter who is president when a decision is handed down, it matters who was president when the justices were appointed. People sometimes react to this by moving the goalposts and claiming the real issue was a failure by Democrats to "codify" Roe v. Wade. I am not sure what "codify" means in this context, and I'm not sure they are either. One thing it does not mean is that congress can pass a law saying "abortion is legal forever." Republicans could easily repeal such a law and it the federal government cannot necessarily prevent states from restricting abortion at the state level. Roe v. Wade was a ruling stating that the constitution guaranteed a right to privacy, which included the right to have an abortion. This prevented abortion restrictions in a way federal law cannot. That doesn't mean passing federal law protecting abortion is a bad idea, but it isn't a foolproof protection. It's fair to argue that the Democratic Party and the left of center generally were complacent about abortion. The form of this complacency was not taking the courts seriously, while the right spent fifty years openly filling the courts with anti-abortion judges.

The last thing that worries me is that this is popping up phrased almost the exact same way all over the place. I am afraid that it is not merely incompetence, but intentional misinformation, that is then repeated by the incompetent who believe it.

I know some will probably dismiss this post as being from a "vote harder" liberal Biden supporter, but whatever your feelings about Biden, the Democratic Party, or the democratic process in the U.S., you should care about the truth. The truth is that Roe v. Wade was overturned by Republican-appointed judges and abortion bans are being enacted by Republican elected officials, and Joe Biden opposes these things. You can do with that information whatever you wish, but you denying it is dishonest.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Barbara Rodriguez at The 19th:

Vice President Kamala Harris has long been the target of racist and misogynistic attacks online as a woman in politics who is also Black and South Asian. As she seeks the Democratic nomination for president, the gendered, sexualized and racial disinformation against her could get worse — and experts warn there may be less comprehensive oversight by tech companies to stop its spread this election cycle.

In the days since President Joe Biden announced he would not seek reelection and endorsed Harris to be his successor, right-wing media personalities and others have posted disinformation and misinformation — intentional and unintentional spreading of false information, respectively — about Harris in memes, videos and writings online. The posts, shared on popular social media platforms, have primarily focused on sexualized and racist narratives about Harris, including claims about her dating history and her eligibility to be president. Disinformation experts who spoke with The 19th said highlighting or linking to more specific disinformation about Harris risks amplifying it.

Nina Jankowicz, cofounder and CEO of the American Sunlight Project, an organization that tracks how deceptive information is spread and its threats to democracy, believes the tech companies that run these popular platforms are not doing enough to stop the spread of disinformation about women candidates like Harris. She noted that some social media moderation systems can miss detecting posts being shared right now about Harris in part because the problematic messages are often coded to hide their meaning.  “People have free speech. People can be critical of people in politics, whether they’re men or women. But what we’re talking about here are posts that go against the platforms’ own terms of service — in terms of violent rhetoric, in terms of sexualized rhetoric, in terms of gender-based or ethnicity-based or race-based harassment,” she said.

Tech companies that run social media platforms have made some public commitments to address disinformation generated by artificial intelligence in election-related content. They’ve also faced scrutiny on the scope of their efforts on overall content moderation.

[...] Jankowicz, herself the target of disinformation, is the coauthor of a study conducted in 2020 and released in early 2021 that analyzed gendered abuse of women candidates. The analysis looked at 13 women across six social media platforms and more than 336,000 pieces of abusive content shared by over 190,000 users over a two-month period. Harris accounted for 78 percent of the total recorded instances of gendered abuse and disinformation.

“Unfortunately, Harris has been targeted with these as long as she’s been in politics. The internet makes them more potent,” added Jankowicz, who wrote “How to Be a Woman Online: Surviving Abuse and Harassment, and How to Fight Back,” published in 2022. “These narratives exist and they are being used in a coordinated way in order to undermine the idea that she is fit for office.” Smith said there’s power in the general public being aware of the intention here. “They’re not trolling her just to troll her. There’s a broader effort at play that is connected to undermining women’s participation in democracy and women holding office,” she said. “There is this bigger agenda.” Former President Donald Trump claimed ahead of his party’s convention this month that he would try to share a message of unity to potential voters, though his words and policy proposals have been rife with animosity toward immigrants and transgender people. He has also repeatedly criticized Harris — and not just over differences in policy positions. In early July, he posted on his Truth Social account a veiled reference to Harris’ dating history on a social media post as a means of tying it to her professional ascension.

On that same platform, Trump this week called the vice president — who is also a former U.S. senator, attorney general and district attorney — “dumb as a rock.” Trump has also tried to make fun of Harris’ laugh, which his campaign included in a memo released about her record in public office. The laughter also closes the first attack ad by a pro-Trump political action committee, released this week.  “That focus on style over substance is an attempt to diminish beliefs that she is ‘presidential,’” Kelly Dittmar, an associate professor of political science at Rutgers University and the director of research at the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), said during a call Tuesday with reporters. “All of these attacks and the degree to which they resonate reflect the persistent dominance of masculinity and Whiteness in presidential politics, and we see candidates and campaigns double down on these status quo dynamics in messaging and presentation.”

Some politicians used racist tropes to claim Harris was unqualified to run for president. Rep. Tim Burchett, a Republican from Tennessee, said on Monday on social media and during a CNN interview that Harris was tapped as vice president through DEI — which stands for “diversity, equity and inclusion” but has been coopted by detractors as a racist message about a person’s qualifications for a job. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia made a similar claim on Tuesday on social media. Politico reported that House Speaker Mike Johnson has instructed Republicans to stick to messaging about Harris’ policies instead of her gender and race. It’s not just mainstream online platforms where racist and sexist messaging is running rampant. In the first 48 hours after Harris announced her intention to run for arguably the most powerful job in the world, hate speech about her rose sharply on websites where users are known to share right-wing conspiracies, according to an analysis by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, an organization that has been tracking how political discourse is shaping the potential for political violence.

“Women politicians, particularly women of color, have long experienced harassment, misogyny, and racism, sometimes to the point of being driven out of politics,” Wendy Via, a cofounder of the project, said in a statement to The 19th. “What is shameful is that this kind of vile rhetoric in our political discourse is completely unsurprising at this point. We can’t allow ourselves to become numb to the dehumanization of women, especially as we’re being used as pawns in a political power grab and the undermining of democracy.” Hillary Clinton, the first woman to win a party’s nomination for president, talked about her own experiences in facing “sexism and double standards” in an opinion piece Tuesday, where she also spoke of the attacks she endured when she ran for president and the realities that Harris will face in the weeks ahead: “She and the campaign will have to cut through the noise, and all of us as voters must be thoughtful about what we read, believe and share.”

With Kamala Harris running for President, the racist and sexist disinformation attacks against Harris are back in full force.

These folks are scared of a powerful woman potentially becoming the next President, so these folks resort to degrading gender and race-based attacks on Harris.

[juana-the-iguana]

Navigating media during war

Here are some tips to navigate the conflict without a paid subscription. Disclaimer, I am based in the United States and this advice is for people in the US. These tips may apply for all wars, but I wrote this with the Israel-Hamas conflict in mind.

My qualifications: I am a reporter who has worked on both local, state, national and international stories. I have covered breaking news, and have done enterprising news and investigative journalism. I will graduate with a MA in Journalism in a month. 

Reasons to question my authority: I have less than five year of professional experience. I have never reported on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or anywhere else in the Middle East. I speak neither modern Hebrew nor Arabic. 

Moving on:

The best tip I can give you is pick a few good news sources and wait two days after any given event or incident before claiming to understand what happened.

In the United States, our news industry is incentivized toward breaking news, which means that organizations sometimes air information without having time to thoroughly fact check it. This becomes especially evident in times of war, when it is hard to obtain information and even on-the-ground reporters don't have the full picture of what's happening.

You are not going to find a perfect news organization. They're all going to fuck up in some capacity. If you have a strong stance on this issue, you're going to be more sensitive to those mistakes and real or perceived biases. (And, for the record, it is possible for one organization to hold multiple biases depending on the time of day, presenter and facet of the war being discussed.) That's why it is genuinely important to consume multiple news sources.

So if you're wondering why I chose these sources it's because a) they're free, b) they issue corrections when they're wrong and c) they do not engage in disinformation.

In no particular order: BBC, Reuters, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, AP. You should not rely on only one of these. You should fact-check these against bias sources that don't outright lie. 

Now onto the sources you should avoid. Let's get into disinformation: What is it? 

Disinformation is the intentional spreading of false information. It's lying. Misinformation is inaccurate information that is spread around, but not done with malice.

All news organizations have misinformation at some point. You should NEVER trust a news organization that engages in disinformation, about anything, unless several years have passed, the people responsible for the disinformation have been thoroughly purged from the group and they cite every goddamn thing they said.

The two big organizations I recommend avoiding because they engage in disinformation are Fox News and Al Jazeera.

Fox News lied about the 2020 election in the United States and actively contributed to an attempted insurrection. Al Jazeera is an arm of the Qatari state and has lied repeatedly about, well, just about everything of interest to the Qatari government, but especially Israel. They have made several highly consequential lies in this ongoing conflict that have had tangible, catastrophic consequences on the entire globe. 

Advocacy groups are not news outlets.

Also, don't trust terrorist organizations. Yes, the UN, WHO, Amnesty International and pretty much every NGO under the sun and the vast majority of news organizations cite them, but that's not because they're reliable, it's because they're the only group releasing information from Gaza.

You shouldn't take the IDF at face value either, but if what the IDF is saying is verified by the US, EU and/or other reliable, third parties, then that information is probably true. 

No news source is perfect. That's just a fact. I cannot stress the importance of looking at multiple sources.

Here are some things to look out for when watching/reading the news.

- If a news source is attributing facts to two different sources, ask yourself, "why?" Information is hard to come by. Sometimes one source doesn't report everything you want to know. But sometimes you know your source is unreliable, you don't have any alternatives, so you want to distance yourself from that. What does this look like? 

You might see people cite two sources to report death counts in Gaza: the Palestinian Health Ministry, which is run by Hamas, and Save the Children which analyzes information about the number of children killed. Save the Children gets the estimated number of deaths from Hamas. 

- Does it make sense to have this information at this time? If there was an explosion and a government states that 500 people died in it, well, how much time did it take them to count those bodies? Does that sound feasible?

- When you're listening to eye-witness interviews, do their perspectives or narratives match up with the physical scenes you are seeing? They might not be lying, it could be a miscommunication, but for the context it is presented in, it might not be accurate.

Language to look out for:

Occupation, blockade, siege, war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, ethnic cleansing, legitimate military targets and apartheid are all distinct things. All of them, with the exception of apartheid, have specific legal definitions. If people are using these things interchangeably, maybe they're sharing opinions. That doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't valuable, but it does mean that you probably shouldn't cite them when debating international law.

Now let's elaborate on "occupation" for a second. Egypt occupied Gaza from 1949 to 1967. Then Israel occupied Gaza until 2005. In 2007 Israel started the blockade on Gaza and last month, after the 10/7 massacre, they started a siege. As noted above, these are distinct things.

If people are talking about occupation or settlements in the context of this conflict it means either one of four things:

- They are talking about the West Bank, which is under occupation and where settlements do exist

- They are talking about the history of Gaza pre 2005

- They do not know that Gaza isn't under occupation and that there are no longer settlements there (which means that they are not an informed source)

- Or they assume the entire Israeli state is occupying Palestine which, whether you like it or not, is not factually or correct

Just because something feels wrong doesn't mean it is illegal. Occupations, blockades, sieges, the use of white phosphorous and bombing areas where you know there are civilians are all legal in certain contexts. 

Legality might not matter to you personally, but when you're watching the news and trying to assess who is sharing facts and who is sharing opinions, you should keep this in mind.

Other notes:

- Rockets need fuel. Ventilation systems in tunnels need fuel. 

- Movies and tv shows are filmed in Gaza and the West Bank. If you see a photo of someone in a body bag texting or women laughing while painting a baby doll red, it might be a behind-the-scenes video from one of those things.

- There are a lot of AI generated pictures being used, especially in propaganda. Count fingers, arms, legs and look at backgrounds to see if what you are seeing makes sense. But for the love of god, if you don't like something, that doesn't mean it's AI.

- There are a lot of photos circulating from past wars. Be careful before you reblog. Reverse Google image search is your friend. 

- If you are not sure if something is real or not, wait a week. If the US, EU and dozens of journalists say it is true, believe it.

Finally, social media. When is it appropriate to use social media for news?

News aggregates are usually okay. I'm talking places like r/worldnews. They are pulling from other news organizations, so they can repeat those flaws, but they give you a mix of headlines from multiple sources. And they'll very often post large parts, if not the entirety, of articles from sources from the New York Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal that have paywalls in the comments. But also beware the comments because they can be disgusting.

Social media is also very good for sharing the individual human experience. The issue with that is that you can't always vet the person on camera or being spoken about, so they could be lying, spreading misinformation and it isn't the whole picture. 

This needs to be said again and again: social media dehumanizes people. You know this, but you will fall victim to it anyway. Your algorithm will do its best to show you the best versions of the people and groups you like, and the worst versions of the people and groups you don't like to make you feel justified in adopting dehumanizing beliefs. 

For anyone interested, I'm going to update the list of news sources I think are trustworthy in the next few days. I've found a few small, independent and/or foreign outlets that use open source intelligence (OSINT) in their reporting and they seem pretty reliable to me, but I want to vet them a bit further.

EDITED: Removed the name of a news organization that I previously said I thought was reliable. They did not issue a correction after uncritically repeating Hamas's lie that the al-Ahli hospital parking lot bombing was an Israeli airstrike that killed 500 people, and spent days repeating these false claims as if they were fact.

[venacesaur]

Ok I'm adding nuance in light of recent developments, since I see so many oversimplified posts.

-We now have reports that the gunshots were scattered instead of being aimed primarily at Trump. That indicates that maybe the goal here wasn't assassination, but we don't know enough yet. Maybe it was an assassination attempt. That is still being investigated.

-The gunman was killed by the Secret Service but still hasn't been identified. We don't know anything about this person's motives or political views. It's possible that this person wasn't even a leftist or specifically aiming to kill Trump or his supporters. Assassination attempts and terrorist attacks tend to involve the perpetrator making their political message and intentions clear. Given the absence of such straightforward messages (so far), this could have been more like a typical public shooting where someone just went to a crowded place to open fire. Or maybe it was politically motivated! We don't know yet.

-As of this post, it's hardly been 6 hours since it happened. This is an ongoing investigation so there is a lot of information that we don't know yet. Keep this in mind before coming to conclusions about what happened. If anything about this event seems "suspicious" to you, it's probably due to this lack of information. That does not mean the shooting was staged. Real people besides Trump and the shooter have died or are injured.

-Be skeptical of anyone claiming to predict the future (election results, etc.) or trying to fill in the gaps of missing information with speculation. Stop and think beyond your initial reaction. You are not immune to misinformation.

Sources: x x

[cherryblossomshadow]

https://youtu.be/7oFu2pNnRIc

Where did you think Top Cop Harris come from

Hey, I'm not the most knowledgeable on this subject, but yes, I have heard that Kamala called herself Top Cop while she was District Attorney.

The only two posts on my blog that address this have imo pretty nuanced takes on this, which boil down to:

Kamala is not perfect, but we can't wait for a perfect candidate to magically appear

Therefore, you can absolutely criticize her for things she did, things she contributed to, things that happened on her watch

But you should criticize her for what really happened. People may not know that she wasn't a uniformed officer who physically arrested people. She got into law to protect women and children from abuse

Yes, she was upholding a corrupt and racist system. But criticize her for that. Not for lies

We can talk about the nuances of what she WAS, but we first have to correct the mistaken impression of what she WASNT

.

Additionally, I think it should be allowed to feel hope for a candidate that isn't as bad as you thought. It's allowed to correct some misinformation around you

I'm not looking at this election like she's some savior who will fix the world just bc she's not really a cop. I'm hoping that ppl won't write her off based on inaccurate information, only accurate information. Bc the only other alternative is That Guy

.

Again, I'm not an expert on this. But the takes that I elevate aren't only the ones that I like or agree with; they're the takes that I think make a good point or are worth chewing on.

Some greatest hits from this post:

Be careful what you read, always be critical of how facts are presented to you, and don't be afraid to admit when you're wrong.

There's no such thing as a good cop, but there do exist naive cops with good intentions who think they can change the system from within

The real nuance is that the position of "top cop" or whatever can't be left empty. When you're filling out the ballot and get to sheriffs and prosecutors, every candidate is an acab. There are no right choices simply by what the nature of the job is. But there are candidates who will attempt that incremental change, and ones who can make things much worse.

She gets my vote at least, she's definitely better than trump or biden, but I'm still hesitant to give my absolute full support.

And from this post:

It didn’t hit me until recently that people genuinely think Kamala Harris was a police officer because of all the people who call her a cop online.

We can discuss how related that is to police work and how tied she is to the carceral system etc etc (but for fairness would have to include her record of pushing for lowering incarceration rates through programs helping former prisoners + her office refusing to jail folks for low level weed offense). But she was never a police officer. 

I think it’s important to note she learned and grew over time, as well.

What drives me crazy about the prosecutor/district attorney = cop common line of leftist thinking is that. People always talk about when a progressive DA is appointed, and how important that is, because the DA literally can just decide not to prosecute certain offenses.

I’d also like to add that if you look at her record in a timeline she has gotten progressively more liberal!

#some ppl will call it pandering but uhhhh we literally want our politicians to listen to our concerns and change their policies based on it

We vote for the weakest adversary. The weakest adversary is always the politician who mostly agrees with you but got where they are by compromising with an unjust system. Elect that person and mush their face in the compromises they’ve made and we can undo the fucked up laws and practices !!!! Or you can let someone who can never be convinced because they hold opposite views on criminalization, incarceration, police brutality and immunity, etc. If you don’t understand or care that voting works this way, where’s your pipe bombs and guerilla fighter cells? Cause that or complacency with fascist takeover is all you’re eating 

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

#youre not gonna budge trump #but if youre not happy with kamala #nudge her left! #dont let perfect be the enemy of good #or progress #we're still on the wrong side of the line #but how are we going to get to the right side without taking a single step?

[atlafan]

I'm currently teaching an intro to communication course at a uni in Boston, and oddly enough, the last couple of weeks we've been diving into fake news, misinformation, and disinformation. The book I'm having the students read is a collection of essays about social media during COVID-19 and the early days of lock down and the vaccine. It was really tough teaching yesterday. I was sad, and many of the students were sad, but I couldn't get into it too much because for those things, I have to keep my opinions to myself. Students love to report every little thing.

I'm just really hoping they're able to connect what they're learning to what's been going on now. We've talked about the 2020 election a bit, and how most conservatives are more likely to believe conspiracy theories. There was data collected about how many conservatives are not as educated as others, which also leads them to be more susceptible to fake news.

There's a difference between fake news and misinformation, that I went over with them:

Fake News is deliberately made up shit used to scare people, and trick others into believing false things. It is crafted purposefully to confuse people

Misinformation can be fake news, but its intent isn't always malicious. Sometimes altruistic people blindly share things without double checking sources or information because they believe they're helping others by sharing posts online. Often times, it's the wrong information

I don't really know where I'm going with this, but at the end of the day, whether it's fake news or misinformation, lies are lies are lies. It's up to you, it's your responsibility to be come more media literate so you can sift through the garbage and find the truth and factual information.

We talked about third person effect as well. That's when you believe other people can fall for false information, but you think you never would. And yet so many of us get deceived. We rely so heavily on what our peers are doing and saying that we forget that they could be spreading false information.

Healthy reminder to always double check your sources and information before blindly resharing someone else's posts. Headlines are deceiving for a reason. Take the two minutes to go look something up. Don't let yourself be fooled.

[thelampisaflashlight]

General rambling and life stuff below the cut.

I keep meaning to respond to messages in my inbox, but between work and things going on with my family, a good deal of my time after work is spent trying to catch up on things like laundry and just... existing elsewhere off of tumblr.

To be transparent, a lot has happened with my family in the last year or so; My father had three surgeries (one major, two minor), my cousin died unexpectedly and that brought about all sorts of... "fun" things to light, and more recently resulted in another relative fleeing into the night and deciding to set up shop across the country...

Add to this a whole heap of other bullshit, it being an election year (gotta love being bombarded by the same political ADs day after day with outright discussions of SA and misinformation being spread through out of context audio clips...) and now the hurricane... My mind is very much... not here.

Just, generally speaking.

I'm keeping up with the news, I'm reading things and staying informed as best as I can, and I'm trying to help where I can, within my means to do so, like figuring out where we'll be making donations to/doing my due diligence to fact check information I've been given.

It's not much a vote of confidence, I know, and it might all sound like one big excuse to let things slide or slip through the cracks, but, please, understand it's not intentional.

At present, I'm... alright.

I'm level, ya know?

But I'd be lying if I said it hasn't gotten dark in the old brain box at times.

So, yeah.

I'm also gonna say, ya know, it's kind of fucked up how people just kind of brush off someone's family member dying if it's not a parent/grandparent, because the attitude I got from people hearing my cousin died was like, "Oh, that sucks. Anyway-"

Or "Another one?"

Yes, another one.

I've lost two cousins in the last two years give or take, and it's like, I wasn't close with the first one, but it was upsetting, and this one I was closer with, but more so with his mother, my aunt, and seeing how the loss of both of my cousins impacted her... try facing a loved one who has lost a person who she loved like a daughter and then her son and tell me that doesn't fuck you up a bit.

So if I'm on here just carving out a little niche and keeping things lighter for a while... yeah.

Yeah.

[terriblesoup]

Political theory in the digital age and the rhetoric of political speeches: a blog about politics n stuff.

Okay let's start with explaining some of the words in the title:

Political theory: is the study of politics, its concepts and even historical figures that took part in its advancement or the historical record of political thoughts overall.

the digital age: meaning this day and age, where all information is available to everyone all the time and accessible through computer technology or any other modern device that we use.

the advent of digital technology has significantly transformed political communication, it reshaped the way political information is spread, especially when elections are about to start, social media platforms transformed into this fast news dissemination hub that's even faster than what it usually is. the news, regardless of being true or just a misinformation strategy to gain audience to the politicians' campaigns are and will stay at the top of the charts until the end of the battle between the amount of adversaries.

And not only did this technological progress impact the desperate tries of the politicians and their contest to ridicule themselves while making sure to announce every thought they have, problematic or not; but it has also affected the relationship between governments and their constituents. Yes, it has become a transparent one where the voices of the people are easier to hear as well as their complains, but what has also become transparent is the clear lack of will of these governments to help these people and how much they're actually working to make the positive change in their lives, which is very little. The poor management of the e-governments moderation showed the poor management of projects made in real life as well as their capacity to handle crisis and emergencies and should it continue as such, it will only lead to more deterioration in aspects of life as well as the luxury of thought to afford a roof to live under.

E-governance might sound like a fancy term, but it could evolve into an even fancier monster with blockchain technology. While it promises transparency and security, it also encourages the rise of a high-tech surveillance state, where every move is watched and recorded, and every opinion is and will be punished regardless of the intention.

Let's talk about the debates on technological determinism and how it messes with our political theories. Some people believe that technology is like a bossy puppeteer pulling all the strings in politics. It's not a happy thought because it makes it seem like we have no say in what happens and technology just takes over. and this is like giving up on trying to make things better. We might think, "Why bother discussing politics or trying to change things if technology is running the show?" It's a bit like saying we're stuck on a ride we can't control.

This view makes everything seem too simple. Politics is already complicated, but if we blame everything on technology, we miss out on important discussions about power, how we're governed, and how society works because we're too busy blaming technology for everything. This way of thinking also lets people off the hook. Instead of holding political leaders accountable for their dumb and thoughtless decisions, we can just blame it on technology. It's an easy way out, and it stops us from asking the tough questions or thinking about the consequences of political choices.

Which leads us to topic of the rhetoric of political speeches, and how leaders use language to navigate this complex landscape and whether they're using technology as a scapegoat or addressing the real issues.

Rhetoric: means the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing.

Political speeches often feature carefully crafted phrases, loaded with symbolism and connotations. Leaders may use positive language to inspire confidence or negative language to evoke fear or concern, which is very easy to achieve despite what many believe saying they can't be fooled by politicians.

The easiest strategy to use is emotional appeals where they use personal stories or shared values or any emotional resonance which evokes empathy and mobilizes support, influencing how individuals relate to the issues presented in the speech because there's nothing a human love more than making a story about them or remotely relatable to their personal share of emotional events.

The framing of issues through specific terminology can sway public perception, framing a topic in a way that aligns with the speaker's agenda and the use of repetition to certain convincing words can and will flip the coin to any desired side the speech figure chooses. And they do it so well because the confidence of a speaker can have a significant impact on what the people wants to hear, and even when rejecting the speaker's idea they will continue to listen to the entire speech simply because convincing you that you're listening with your own free will is the very essence of their intoxicating power on you.

Being charismatic and making simple faint jokes to loosen the seriousness of the topic will either make you comfortable with the speaker's public image, or in rage with the audacity and thus continuing to watch and listen regardless because you want to know more so you can know how to answer at the end or you want to give them the benefit of the doubt because their jokes weren't that bad ( and that's why most people feel intrigued by sociopaths and serial killers, they are charming).

Which is why using social media as the news platform for the political view is the best way to control the crowd, making users exposed to numerous opinions about the same topic all the time makes them vulnerable and confused and easy to sway with each new opinion freshly baked. And the simplicity demanded by platforms often lead to oversimplified and reductionist representations of complex political issues where everyone easily has a say in it.

Political debates devolve into divisive online battles and in this digital echo chamber, the ease in which political opinions are manipulated and distorted becomes increasingly concerning and the control of scandals is becoming easily moderated.

With all the created bubbles and trends and topics offered through direct engagement and the interactive nature of social media or any type of technological way of news spread, it is fast to have new distractions every minute of using our devices and though it is what most people hope for to run from the reality of their lives even for a couple of hours, it has become the very essence of power for most corrupted political parties to use in order to have control over everyone and sadly we have offered it to them on a plate of gold. Easily showing our personal lives to the public and leaving a very dark digital footprint that can be used against us by the same parties that offer transparency and security won't lead to any good no matter how much we evolve technologically.

------

I think the idea stops here, I shouldn't ramble more because I know I will drive to more topics and this post will never end lol, I am not a native English speaker so please bear my language faults.

Please share your thoughts about this subject, I would love to hear from you guys.

[cleolinda]

Short version: I agree.

Long version with links re: the RESTRICT bill:

There’s a lot that's bad about TikTok culture and the algorithms that promote the worst of it (misinformation, dangerous “pranks,” and apparently, videos that promote self-harm, for example) as fast as possible. I have the app because my sister likes to send me things on it, so TikTok is not an abstract boogeyman to me; I really dislike it as both a medium and a platform, but I have used it, and I can confirm that it does have a lot of garbage. I also understand that I’m the one who agreed to use this app and watch these videos. Also-also, I’m a total hypocrite who reblogs TikToks posted here that I enjoy. Don’t like it, don’t use it; grumble about those kids today on your (my) own time.

(Also, yes: Facebook is a scourge of misinformation and YouTube's algorithms are equally malicious. And Twitter is just... I don't want to talk about Twitter.)

Handing over even more power to the government through a bill with VAST overreach is not the solution to any of this.

It may be easy to dismiss the bill, but RESTRICT is as broad as the existing Patriot Act. In fact, many online privacy advocates have been drawing parallels between the two. Some even refer to RESTRICT as the "Patriot Act 2.0." It is also worth noting that the bill does not even mention TikTok by name, despite that being the original intention behind its drafting.

Answer: It leaves the possibility of criminalizing VPNs open. Also:

Warner's "Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act," or the RESTRICT Act, doesn't specifically mention TikTok or ByteDance. Rather, it would grant the U.S. secretary of commerce the broad power to "identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate … any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property" that the secretary determines to pose "an undue or unacceptable risk" in several different areas. These include federal elections, "information and communications technology products and services," and "critical infrastructure or digital economy," as well as "coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States.

[…] Hence anyone using a VPN to access TikTok would be in trouble—specifically, subject to up to $1 million in fines, 20 years in prison, or both.

[…] We've seen many times the way federal laws are sold as attacks on big baddies like terrorists and drug kingpins yet wind up used to attack people engaged in much more minor activities.

It started out with people (me) being annoyed with the party house down the street and kind of wishing they’d just leave, and it's ending with the government saying, “We can absolutely make that happen for you. We’ll pass a bill so that we can decide who gets to live on your street and who gets to go to jail for trying to live there.”

i think any conversation regarding banning tiktok that insists tiktok is actually a force for good misses the point

it doesn't matter if tiktok is the next library of alexandria or if it sucks shit, the problem is that the US government shouldn't have the authority to limit americans' access to the internet so dramatically. the problem is other social media corporations lobbying to ban their opponents. the problem is pretending data harvesting is just fine as long as we're the ones doing it, diverting attention away from how companies like facebook have already harvest and sold way more data than tiktok could ever dream of collecting for the chinese government.

[thatgirlgalaxy777]

In a world full of “love and light”, it’s hard to put insidious information like this out there. But if you’re not made aware of it, nothing will ever change, and these evil people will still have power.

The Epstein/Maxwell arrests, Hillary Clinton/Anthony Weiner emails, and Diddy arrests are all connected.

The Maxwell trial directly coincided with the COVID outbreak, which was intentional and used as the perfect distraction.

While Hilary Clinton was on trial, they released the vaxx, making you freak out about mandates and fight amongst each other on who was morally superior instead of following her trial.

The Diddy arrests? Now they have you fighting about losing rights while spreading misinformation to fuel the fire…When you're busy fighting each other,  or signing off the Internet completely because you’re so fed up with fighting, you won't notice what's happening behind the scenes.

ALL of the officers who found Clinton‘s laptop committed suicide after watching what they found on it. All 12 of them.

Thanks to Biden/Harris, all of the information has been taken off the Internet and “fact checked“ because the allegations would crumble not only the left side, but all of democracy. #freespeech ?!?

The only information you can find are people who have survived the trafficking (look up Ally Carter and Madison Clares on YouTube or TikTok), people like me who have been following this since the plandemic, or people like this dude who conduct their own private investigation.

The hash tag Adrenochrom3 and Fr@zzleDrip (can’t spell them out properly without this post being taken down ) have been removed from TikTok, and every major news company has been paid off to falsify this information. You can still search for alternative spellings of the words and find videos exposing the truth.

Sound familiar?

Remember when doctors were paid off to say that patients who died of cancer died of Covid because they had Covid in their system? Or a car accident?

And the scientists assured you to “trust the science” while most of us knew it was absolute fucking bullshit!!

If they're so concerned about misinformation, why only target certain viewpoints while ignoring others? They’re only removing information that threatens their regime.

All of the information they “falsified” about Covid has now come out to be true.

Remember when they told you you were gonna die if you didn’t get the vaccine? Or that your mask actually protected you against the virus? So many other lies, and you’re STILL trusting the same media sources.

Human trafficking is a global issue. It involves the exploitation and harm of children, often through violent and disturbing means. Despite its severity, many people remain unaware of the issue due to a lack of information and intentional concealment by those in power.

-Supposedly- President Elect Trump is going to expose these demons, and I’m sure when he removes the censors you’ll have more access to information. but for now, I hope this inspires you to at least take a deeper look beyond the narrow lense of American politics.



This video just covers one property used for the demonic rituals and doesn’t necessarily cover everything about the global elite and their agenda, but it’s a good place to start.

[bllsbailey]

Trump Sues 'Legacy' Media Companies For Defamation: 'Publishing Blatant Lies'

Donald Trump arrives to a Q&A with Pastor Paula White at the National Faith Advisory Summit on October 28, 2024 in Powder Springs, Georgia.

President-elect Donald Trump has hit back by launching a barrage of lawsuits against publishers and media outlets that have defamed him by continuously “spreading lies,” with only two months until he returns to the White House.

Trump escalates his long-standing animosity toward the “bias, left-wing mainstream media,” which he referred to as “the enemy camp” in his victory speech last week.

According to the Columbia Journalism Review, Trump’s attorney, Edward Andrew Paltzik, wrote to Penguin Random House and the New York Times two days before the presidential election, requesting $10 billion in damages for publications that spouted blatant lies about Trump.

The letter was part of a string of other legal actions taken against other media outlets who have lied about Trump out of political warfare.

Some of these lies include the left-wing mainstream media’s ongoing claims that Trump was involved with or authored with the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” that he was convicted of rape in the E. Jean Carroll case, and that he would ban abortion in the U.S. if re-elected.

However, these “legacy” media outlets have typically not had to answer to their perpetuated lies.

Social media users chimed in and commented on the recent news.

“The DOJ opened up the door to defamation suits like this by going after Alex Jones and other people they claimed promoted misinformation. By claiming Trump was Hitler and promoting project 2025 has his when he didn’t have anything to do with it they open themselves up for these cases. With all these vidoes of people freaking out over these false narratives and people killing their families in fear of these false narratives. It is likely Trump is going to win these cases,” said X user @lanny_lutz

The New York Times is “a full-throated mouthpiece of the Democratic party” that engages in “industrial-scale libel against political opponents,” according to the lawyer letter that CJR reviewed. It also accused the writers of the articles, Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt, Susanne Craig, and Russ Buettner, of making “false and defamatory statements” about Trump.

The letter accused the New York Times of harboring “every intention of defaming and disparaging the world-renowned Trump brand that consumers have long associated with excellence, luxury, and success in entertainment, hospitality, and real estate, among many other industries, as well as falsely and maliciously defaming and disparaging him as a candidate for the highest office in the United States.”

An insider with knowledge of the situation also told CJR that the newspaper responded to the letter by referring Paltzik to Penguin Random House, referencing its charges related to Buettner and Craig’s book and stating that it supported their reporting.

Additionally, according to CJR, attorneys representing Chris LaCivita, the co-chief of Trump’s campaign, wrote to The Daily Beast on November 5th, requesting that the publication retract its “false” reports that LaCivita raised $22 million to support Trump’s reelection.

The Daily Beast later added an updated editor’s note in its articles in response to the letter.

“Based on a further review of FEC records, the correct total is $19.2m. The Beast regrets the error. The article has also been updated to make clear that payments were to LaCivita’s LLC not to LaCivita personally.” “This entire narrative is completely false and a result of malicious and irresponsible reporting by The Daily Beast,” the letter continued.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Don Moynihan at Can We Still Govern?:

Trump has normalized unfounded attacks on lots of people, but public servants in particular. We have seen this at every level of government, whether it be librarians, school teachers, public health or election officials. Whether Trump wins or loses, I worry that this practice will remain a feature of the contemporary American state. Trumpism has fed an era of sustained harassment of public officials even when he was not in power, and for state and local officials that the federal government has no control over.

This is happening while we are seeing an interesting conversation happening about how to revitalize American state capacity. But I don’t see how we can have that conversation while ignoring that more and more American public servants are being asked to live under conditions of terror. Previously, I wrote about the attack on federal employees by Tom Jones and his slime machine, the American Accountability Foundation, funded by the Heritage Foundation and the Conservative Partnership Institute. Jones is conducting opposition research on civil servants with the intent of identifying those that Trump should fire once he returns to office. He has since started releasing the names of “targets”, starting with Department of Homeland Security. “Targets” is not exactly subtle.

A nothingburger case for firing federal officials

The site posts the civil servants name, picture, title and salary. But the actual accusations are weak tea. This is the evidence for firing the “top 10 targets” who we must assume are the worst of the worst, providing the most damning cases:

Worked for American Bar Association, Catholic Charities or other “far left” organizations which help immigrants

Praised Anthony Fauci in a tweet

Worked as an immigration lawyer or public defense attorney

Has credit card debt

Worked for immigration advocacy groups

Said that “homegrown extremism” and “misinformation” were homeland security threats, or served on a disinformation board

Supports DC statehood

Has donated to Democratic politicians in the past - including $10 to Elizabeth Warren in 2019

Donated to LGBTQ supportive groups

Spoke on a diversity panel, spoke on a panel called “The Role of Social Workers in Immigration Legal Services Organizations.”

Was listed on DHS press releases as a point of contact to provide more information about administration policies

Implemented Biden era policies, like setting up virtual screening processes for immigrants, or adding third gender option on citizenship documents

Social media posts critical of Trump and his immigration policies, supportive of immigrants, acknowledging systemic racism

Wrote a law review article critical of the treatment of mentally ill immigrants in detention facilities

Guilt by association: “is on good terms with notorious bureaucrat”

Won an award for excellent performance in her job (I’m not kidding, see below), which means she can't be trusted. Another won an award for helping Afghan and Ukraine refugees resettle in the United States.

So, no actual scandals! The officials are criticized in many cases for simply doing their job, or expressing generic liberal opinions. (If you think I am misrepresenting anything, here is the link to the profiles). Having job-relevant experience is bad, if its suggest any empathy with immigrants. Being good at your job is bad (so much for the claim that Schedule F is there to weed out poor performers). Sharing the same views of homeland security threats that the FBI does: also bad! In no case is there any claim that the actions are illegal, or the statements the employees made were wrong. Without Schedule F, no career official could be fired for these actions. With Schedule F, they are gone.

[...]

Terror and formal power go hand in hand

It is also a categorical error to distinguish between formal powers (in this case, the proposal that Trump use Schedule F to fire the employees) with informal modes of intimidation. When I talk with people studying government, both journalists and researchers, they focus a great deal on the formal authority. But I don’t think MAGAworld sees it in those terms. They see the use of intimidation as central to their goals.

Jones is already well connected with Project 2025, and people who will staff a second Trump administration. He could simply hand them a list of names of the people he thinks should be fired. But the publicity is part of the point. They can’t fire everyone, but they can scare a lot of people into submission. For terror to work, it needs public executions. It needs guillotines. It needs fear. They can weaponize the conservative information ecosystem — from the more respectable media like Fox, to followers who will leave threatening emails and voicemails for people they are told are their enemies — to achieve their full effect.

Jones is not an outlier. Likely Trump appointees have been explicit in threatening career officials. Robert F. Kennedy, the anti-science kook who has said that Trump promised to give him control over health policy, with oversight of HHS, CDC, FDA, NIH “a few others” and the USDA, told FDA officials to “pack their bags.” In the real world, RFK would not be trusted to run a school lunch program. In Trumpworld, he will not just have the ability to impose his whackdoodle ideas on real scientists; he can fire the ones who dare to call him on his bullshit.

[...]

For example, the same people who brought down Harvard President Claudine Gay, and who specialize in accusing Black scholars of plagiarism, recently went after Kamala Harris with the same accusations. The project of surveillance, control and threat includes encouraging students to engage in snitch culture, in the hope of getting their fellow students or faculty into trouble. Charlie Kirk’s operation started with creating a watchlist of “radical professors” before Turning Point became a huge organization fueling campus surveillance. Some states have changed the law to encourage students to record professors to report ideologically suspect comments (they do this in China too). American Accountability Foundation encourages people to send in reports about rogue bureaucrats to its tipline.

Don Moynihan has a solid piece on how Donald Trump seeks to remake the civil services in his fascistic image if he elected again.

[artificialcommonsense]

Module 5 - Info Flood

1. Malinformation: TMU's diversity doctor program a new low for Canadian academia

The above article is an opinion piece published in the National Post regarding TMU’s admissions criteria for their recently accredited medical school which is focused on prioritizing underrepresented populations in the medical field. Although the information pertaining to the school’s application requirements is correct and can be verified through TMU’s website, it is being written about in a biased way, with the intention to cause harm. An attentive reader will note the following:

Both the title and subheading evoke an immediate emotional response

The writer has intentionally left out studies and research that support the vision behind the school’s unique holistic approach to admissions.

The writer uses abrasive language, for example, “Do you really want a diversity doctor gauging your psych med dose?”

2. Disinformation: Trump Retweets Bogus Crime Graphic

The above article references a false graphic that was tweeted by Donald Trump during his election campaign which claimed that “97% of Black people are killed by other Black People and 80% of white people are killed by Black people.” This is an example of disinformation because the FBI’s publicly available database contains the correct statistics pertaining to the crime rates.When confronted about the falsehood of this graphic, Trump confirmed that he did not have the time to fact check every statistic and that it was simply a retweet, not his own creation.

An attentive reader will note the following:

The source of the graphic could not be verified

The statistics that would evoke the highest emotional response were bolded and written in a different colour.

Donald Trump sets out to benefit from voters believing in these statistics because he claimed to make policy changes that would “fix” the crime rates.

3. Misinformation: No, drinking water doesn't kill coronavirus

The above article talks about a widespread rumour that emerged during the pandemic (one which personally I received an infographic about from various Whatsapp groups) - that drinking water regularly can protect you from COVID-19. The posts claimed that water would wash the virus down the esophagus where it would be killed by stomach acid. I believe that elderly family members who shared this information with me did it with very good intentions of keeping me safe, not realizing that the information was not factual. An attentive reader will note the following:

What is the source of this information? Can this be verified from a reliable source like the World Health Organization?

Does the person sharing this information have a medical background? If not, would they have access to a credible secondary source? (i.e having a doctor in the family)

[abdus-salam]

Filing of COCs in the Philippines

As we approach the election season in the Philippines, one crucial step that many candidates are gearing up for is the filing of Certificates of Candidacy (COCs). This process marks the official start of the campaign period, and it’s an exciting time for aspiring leaders as well as voters who are eager to see who will step up for public office.

Filing a COC is a significant moment. It signifies a candidate's commitment to serve and run for a specific position, whether for local government, the Senate, or other offices. The process involves submitting essential documents and meeting specific requirements set by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). It’s a crucial step that holds candidates accountable right from the start.

This year, there’s a palpable buzz surrounding the COC filing, especially as potential candidates weigh in on pressing national issues like economic recovery, education, and healthcare. Voters are keenly observing who throws their hat into the ring, looking for candidates who genuinely resonate with their concerns and aspirations.

Social media plays a big role during this period, with candidates using it to announce their intentions and engage with the public. This transparency is important; voters want to know where candidates stand on key issues before they head to the polls. However, it’s also a time to be wary of misinformation, as rumors and unfounded claims can easily circulate online.

As the filing period approaches, it's essential for voters to stay informed. Watching how candidates position themselves and interact with the public can provide valuable insights into their leadership styles. This election is our chance to influence the direction of our country, so let’s make sure we’re paying attention and ready to engage in meaningful conversations about the future we want to see.

#voteph2025 #2025elections #COCfiling

[interruptingmooshroom]

I apologize beforehand for the lack of a trigger warning, no images will be shown. This is a post about the genocide occurring in Gaza. There has recently been a release of letters from 99 healthcare professionals in Gaza hospitals. Their website can be found here. From here, I urge you to contact your govern through the channels they provided to your convince. If you are from the USA, Canadia, or the UK, please do so. These letters are about the massive genocide and the power the US has to cause a ceasefire by placing an embargo on both Israel and Palestine. If you are unaware of what an arms embargo is, this is a restriction that applies to weaponry that cannot be traded with the subject(s). The USA has, and continues to, set sanctions (another term fro embargos) on foreign parties. This is not a new thing we can do, nor is it out of the question if one's goal is to truly bring a ceasefire. This final paragraphs is specifically about the US election, and specifically, why someone may be hesitant to vote due to the genocidal beliefs of both parties. Feel free to stop here and visit the website, then continue scrolling. While it's easy to say one candidate is worse on Israel than another, a fact that isn't disputed, this does not change the fact a vote is still in direct support of genocide. It's hard for many voters to continue with Kamala Harris due to her intent to continue fueling the carnage of noncombatants. When we don't directly support her, this does not translate to support for her opposition. Instead, this is to apply pressure so she can listen to the people and bring a ceasefire. If for some reason you think this is the wrong option, then you have misunderstood what it means to have a representative of your government. Why do you bother to vote if you think they don't listen to people? Why are you still supporting a system in which you might believe there to be no option to be heard? If you truly believe pressure on a candidate to end something as universally evil as genocide is wrong due to fears of fascism on the horizon, then you should be already rioting. You have skipped the idea that protest is a possibility to be heard, you have completely lost what voice politics was meant to give to the people. There's no justification for what is happening, if you think there is then you are misinformed. Your misinformation is your fault, you are an adult with access to information. You may not be a bad person, but you are supporting bad people. If you ever have someone ask you decades in the future what you did or felt about Palestine's genocide as someone who's "lived through it", will you be able, to be honest and tell them you supported the murderers? Perhaps your child asks why people let these horrors happened, and how could you be honest with them if they found out their parent was one of the ones who let it happen?

Link, again.