New court documents reveal that Russia is keeping a very, very long list of influencers to spread its propaganda.
New court documents reveal that Russia is keeping a very, very long list of influencers to spread its propaganda.
The Russian disinformation plot revealed in a Justice Department indictment this week may just be the tip of the iceberg, according to newly unsealed court documents.
On Wednesday, the DOJ announced it would seize 32 internet domains linked to a larger Kremlin scheme to promote disinformation and influence the 2024 election. The Russian campaign, known as Doppelganger, uses AI-generated content to create “fake news” boosted through social media with the aim of electing Donald Trump.
…
Of particular note, the documents released Wednesday included an affidavit that noted a Russian company is keeping a list of more than 2,800 influencers world wide, about one-fifth of whom are based in the United States, to monitor and potentially groom to spread Russian propaganda. The affidavit does not mention the full list of influencers, but is still a terrifying indicator of how deep the Russian plot to interfere in U.S. politics really goes.
It's a slippery slope to start assuming people are bots or paid shills. Whos to say everyone that agreed with you at first weren't bots and then regular people came in and commented their own opinion that went against the first wave of bots?
Not everyone that thinks capitalism is broken is a paid Russian agent. I'm assuming that is what you are referring too. Some are very extreme in their views but the most likely explanation is that they are a combination of stupid and mad.
I just think calling people bots and shills has no place in honest discourse and the brushstroke always tends to get bigger and bigger.
Bots and shills have no place in honest discourse, but they obviously exist. Should we pretend they don't—assume everyone is arguing in good faith, regardless of how blatantly dishonest and inconsistent they are? What would you suggest?
I don't disagree that there's a slippery slope problem; there's no shortage of fringe internet echo chambers that dismiss all dissenting opinions as coming from npc's, cia shills, shitlibs, bloodmouths, breeders, <insert dehumanizing label>, etc.
Should we pretend they don't—assume everyone is arguing in good faith
It's a though problem but essentially yes. We should only ban because of content, so anything pro-putin would get the hammer but that comes with it's own problems. It's hard to draw the line. Is being pro-isreal an acceptable stance (not morally, thats obvious, but ban wise)? What about being pro-gasoline cars? I've been tempted many times to assume people bashing EVs are oil industry shills but it's really just people that fell for their propaganda and not someone that is actively participating in it. For the most part, downvotes do their job but everyone knows those can easily be manipulated as well.
If the news was about pro-AI bots floating around, I would probably be accused of being one because I'm very outspoken about it when it's a dissenting opinion on lemmy.
I just don't think it's a good standard to keep. I don't have a solution but I think trying to call out people on it will just end up in people calling each other that when ever an argument goes badly. In the end, I view it as a form of rhetoric.
I guess what we want to do is to cultivate a community where people—and especially bots—will have a hard time engaging dishonestly. Having said that, I'm no closer to knowing how to do it. The struggle with misinformation disinformation seems like an arms race where the bad actors will always have the advantage.
Where in the article does it mention lemmy? As far as I am concerned, we do not have any influencers and we definitely won't be on the list.
I'm just saying assuming people are bots is a bad habit. Why not just assume I'm a paid shills and disregard my points? See how easy it is and why it shouldn't be encouraged?
It's real easy to tell who is a troll/bot though. All you have to do is ask them a few questions, they will respond with a quote, and only answer one. Why do you think they only answer one? Why not answer two or three? What's really weird is no where in this thread was Netanyahu mentioned besides you?
From your perspective, it's anyone who doesn't love being Netanyahu's genocide weapons supplier.
All you have to do is ask them a few questions, they will respond with a quote, and only answer one. Why do you think they only answer one? Why not answer two or three?
Well, either they agree with them or don't want to bother responding to unhinged bullshit. Maybe one thing you said stood out as particularly wrong. Maybe you aren't as entitled to having all your questions answered as you think you are.
What’s really weird is no where in this thread was Netanyahu mentioned besides you?
Putting a question mark at the end of a declarative sentence doesn't make it a question, but you'll demand to see a manager if I don't answer it anyway. I mentioned Netanyahu because of people who see someone who is upset about genocide and immediately shriek "foreign troll!"
Which is prevalent behavior on lemmy. Thank you for illustrating my point by suggesting that I am a foreign troll, as you have done multiple times in response to my opposition to selling Netanyahu weapons for genocide.