Black Lives Matter Fights Disinformation to Keep the Movement Strong

[98cwitr]

I think that's a real dilemma, but some disinformation is clearly blatant. Many of the stories propagate by Russian bots, for example, are clearly false stories without basis in fact.

Agreed, and not just Russia, seems other countries like getting in on the disinformation war.

BLM is now backed by the US government, don't you feel that now, more than ever, they have the power they were seeking and thus the upper hand?

 

[HannahT]

Agreed, and not just Russia, seems other countries like getting in on the disinformation war.

BLM is now backed by the US government, don't you feel that now, more than ever, they have the power they were seeking and thus the upper hand?

Disinformation is all over the place. The media many times don't get their facts straight. Their errors are rarely corrected (maybe a footnote on a article) in the same way they blasted the alleged fact based story in the first place. Then at times they repeat the same falsehood later on even after they acknowledge it was false if it helps make the current story get more juicy for the audience.

Politicians and Activists also spread misinformation, and claim 'studies and figures' which most of the time they never cite that allegedly backs them up. lol if they do give you links to studies or figures it can be organizations that tend to lobby for the case...instead of unbiased information.

People use out of context statements from the opposition to allegely prove some point, and get defensive when it is pointed out. lol then get all emotional say they (who pointed out their error) don't care or hate the group they were trying to 'help' in the first place.

Sadly, BLM isn't the only organization that deals with this. It's all over the place.

Hate is more important than facts today. You can't even agree to disagree without people acting like their lives are ending from the trauma of the disagreement. It's getting ridiculous.

Government can't stop something they themselves are also participating in.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think it's the same as Social Security.

I'm not saying that it's the ideal option - in fact, I'm even rethinking how helpful it would actually be. The 1920s prohibition is coming to mind...

A Freudian slip AND a U-turn, all within a single thread. Maybe I should be a politician.

You mean a social credit number like in China?

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Disinformation is all over the place. The media many times don't get their facts straight. Their errors are rarely corrected (maybe a footnote on a article) in the same way they blasted the alleged fact based story in the first place. Then at times they repeat the same falsehood later on even after they acknowledge it was false if it helps make the current story get more juicy for the audience.

Politicians and Activists also spread misinformation, and claim 'studies and figures' which most of the time they never cite that allegedly backs them up. lol if they do give you links to studies or figures it can be organizations that tend to lobby for the case...instead of unbiased information.

People use out of context statements from the opposition to allegely prove some point, and get defensive when it is pointed out. lol then get all emotional say they (who pointed out their error) don't care or hate the group they were trying to 'help' in the first place.

Sadly, BLM isn't the only organization that deals with this. It's all over the place.

Hate is more important than facts today. You can't even agree to disagree without people acting like their lives are ending from the trauma of the disagreement. It's getting ridiculous.

Government can't stop something they themselves are also participating in.

Truth!

 

[*Starlight*]

On one hand, the internet is full of all kinds of disinformation, and it would be better if there was less of it. Truth is important.

On the other hand, I definitely wouldn't trust tech companies or political activists to judge disinformation in a fair and unbiased way.

 

[SummerMadness]

And you did not comprehend the ramifications of people providing personal information to verify their ID so they can have access to social media......JIC you believe social media doesn't abuse the information they possess now.....it's OK.

Except my post has nothing to do with the topic you're raving about. I hoped you would get what I am saying at this point, but you're still talking about a subject I was never discussing. Anyway, have a nice day.

 

[SummerMadness]

On one hand, the internet is full of all kinds of disinformation, and it would be better if there was less of it. Truth is important.

On the other hand, I definitely wouldn't trust tech companies or political activists to judge disinformation in a fair and unbiased way.

Very true, civil rights activists were once called crazy for suggesting the government was spying on them and infiltrating their groups... then COINTELPRO became known to the public. But surely there is a happy medium between COINTELPRO and Jewish space lasers.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Anyway, have a nice day.

Yep, U2.......

 

[Ana the Ist]

Very true, civil rights activists were once called crazy for suggesting the government was spying on them and infiltrating their groups... then COINTELPRO became known to the public. But surely there is a happy medium between COINTELPRO and Jewish space lasers.

Not a good comparison. Old civil rights groups had everything the modern ones don't. They had intellectuals jumping at the chance to debate, they had clearly defined goals that were grounded in righteousness and justice.

These are college kids repeating whatever their professor tells them to.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

These are college kids repeating whatever their professor tells them to.

And the professors are just repeating the claptrap of the French Deconstructionists.

Erudition—Dust shaken out of a book into an empty skull. (Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary)

 

[Crwth]

Who gets to decide what is true or false?

Given the OP's topic, I'd say it'd have to be those who do the actual moderating of those sites - specifically Facebook and Twitter. Both Facebook and Twitter say they have moderation protocols in place - and ergo moderators that implement the protocols. So, it is ultimately up to those who "interpret" the posts against the protocol guidelines/site rules to determine what's true and what's not. And in the Facebook and Twitter cases, it's patently evident such interpretations are regularly subject to the political and moral (or lack thereof) biases of those moderators - such that "truth" has, on those sites, become a totally subjective discard.

Please note: I am NOT talking about this site's moderation protocol, its rules, or its moderators. I am fully aware that'd be against the site rules and that is not my intent here.