Note that “Reclaim The Net” is very shady and unlikely to be a legitimate civil rights organisation.
Firstly, they display bias; they only ever say positive things about Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and Ron DeSantis, and spin most things in whatever way helps the far-right in the US. They are silent on any Internet related civil rights issues that reflect poorly on the US far-right, or reflect well on central or left parties. Contrast this to more authentic organisations, which criticise things from all over the political spectrum.
Secondly, they prioritise collecting your personally identifiable information over advocating for civil liberties. Some of their articles are behind a registration wall where you have to give at least an email address to see the content.
Thirdly, however, they don’t tell you who they are, and go to lengths to hide it. Whois privacy, author names are likely pseudonyms, only contact is an email, no information about governance structures. There are legitimate reasons to be pseudonymous, although given how keen they are to collect data on visitors, it is a bit hypocritical!
I believe there is a network of single-interest sites the far-right use as hooks to try to gather people with a range of different reasons for being dissatisfied, where the next step is to try to radicalise them and line them up behind Trump.
they only ever say positive things about Donald Trump
Sooo… it’s just another right-wing astroturfing project.
Who decides what is, or receives the label of, misinformation?
Who decides what is, or receives the label of, misinformation?
objectively correct
Typical Hexbear W.
The US state department of course
Well gee, next to Norway and NATO, they’re my favourite regulators!
What a bright future for information.
It’s interesting how you have a top three of USA, Norway, and NATO.
Could you elaborate on the Norway part of this?
Start here:
“By 2009 the NSWF was reported to own about 1% of global stocks and 2.25% of every listed European company.”
“The Fund is to be used not merely to protect and increase the value of the Fund itself, but to influence behaviors among the pool of potential targets of investment.”
“The objectives also contribute to the complex relationship between law and norm, between state regulatory policy and state projections of power through active participation in private markets, and between national legal structures and the internationalization of behavior standards.”
“Responsible investing is not constructed merely to produce the highest achievable returns, but also to bend that objective to other Norwegian political objectives.”
“The Norges Bank may not acquire more than ten percent of the voting shares of an enterprise. Unlike other SWFs, the NSWF does not aspire to be a controlling shareholder, just an influential one. Additionally, the NSWF may not invest in domestic companies or in fixed income instruments issued by governments.”
“Private in form, active ownership provides a method for the transposition of national policy onto the operations of companies over which the Norwegian state has no legal claim to control. Additionally, this projection of public power through shareholding also appears to open a back channel to communication with other states.”
“The NSWF does not merely lobby the companies in which it has an interest, it takes the position that its stakeholding gives it a means of lobbying states for changes in their legal regimes to conform to those that Norway prefers.”
“Norwegian preferences themselves seek to universalize the Norwegian legal order by seeking to incorporate (and transpose) international law and norms onto Norwegian regulatory space, and thus onto the domestic legal orders of foreign states (whether or not the foreign states have embraced those international norms).”
The fund is only the tip of the iceberg. Norway’s PR game is absolutely stunning.
Their extensive (and curious) involvement ranges from importing Jewish prisoners to build infrastructure during WWII, later secretly moving thousands of the bodies of those same victims using paper/asphalt bags as bodybags, to deforestation of the Amazon in Brazil for the benefit of Norwegian Salmon, and so much more.
It’s a wild ride — buckle up.
Alright, I’m Norwegian so I’m aware of all that, just wanted to see if you were some sort of reactionary weirdo. Glad to see you’re not.
How fortunate! Anything to add to my growing research pile? What’s your take on the store norske leksikon?
deleted by creator
The data scientist in me is happy while the citizen is very sad.
Deliberate edits, quote mining, etc. Imo
The problem is that nobody does it right now so everyone just decides whatever they don’t like is misinformation.
Reddit, facebook, google, etc.
Just FYI: Media Bias Fact/Check reports Reclaim The Net as having a right-wing bias and mixed factual credibility.
They tried to set up a Ministry of Truth last year, and they’ll never give up.
The disinformation czar, all the way up her own ass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg
deleted by creator
I still can’t believe that happened. Mind boggling.
I’m confused. Why did she record herself singing that song? She was the head of that board? What the fuckis happening?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Censor “misinformation”
Read “disseminate our misinformation exclusively”
Getting ready for 2024
Which is some bullshit, because Russiagate was long-ago debunked, as well as the actual efficacy of Cambridge Analytica (it largely wasn’t). But thanks to Rachel Maddow’s daily conspiracy theorizing over the span of years, most liberals still believe that foreign State propaganda is going to Manchurian Candidate the populace and steal their democracy. Which makes them rather accepting of the idea that the government should decide what is mis/dis/malinformation. In other words they’ve been primed to accept censorship.
The Mueller report did find plenty of evidence of Russian interference, just not enough to charge Trump. It was a damn site better than the British report on the matter, though, which basically just said “we didn’t find anything because we didn’t look”.
Cambridge Analytica absolutely had a role to play as well. The company was disbanded to try and prevent any fallback, however the same players are acting under different brands. Targeted Facebook ads have proven too effective, you can tell whatever lies you want if you select the right audience, then there will be no one to challenge them - particularly if you do it just before the election.
Based on your vernacular, it sounds like you’re a hexbear user washed up on our shores and circumventing the defederation, shilling for Russia.
Jeff Gerth at Columbia Journalism Review on Russiagate: Editor’s Note | Part one | Part two | Part three | Part four
Based on your vernacular, it sounds like you’re a hexbear user washed up on our shores and circumventing the defederation, shilling for Russia.
We’re orphans living in a Siberian labor camp, forced to post Putler talking points 14 hours a day for our gruel.
We’re orphans living in a Siberian labor camp, forced to post Putler talking points 14 hours a day for our gruel.
More likely you’re a 14 yo edgelord.
Man do you ever suck at this: I’m an elder gen-x senior software developer at a Fortune 100 tech company.
I stand by my original statement. It is much more likely you’re a 14 yo edgelord wannabe shill than a slave shill.
Age and career position is not a measure of maturity, nor is working for a Fortune 100 company a measure of your value.
washed up on our shores
lemm.ee user, you seem confused about who has washed up on whose shores. If you understood this instance better, you would see that, unlike most instances, this isn’t a haven for liberal hegemony.
Thank goodness for Lemmy am I right?
Not for long: the Global North countries have the fediverse on their radars now.
Atlantic Council » Collective Security in a Federated World (PDF)
Many discussions about social media governance and trust and safety are focused on a small number of centralized, corporate-owned platforms that currently dominate the social media landscape: Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, and a handful of others. The emergence and growth in popularity of federated social media services, like Mastodon and Bluesky, introduces new opportunities, but also significant new risks and complications. This annex offers an assessment of the trust and safety (T&S) capabilities of federated platforms—with a particular focus on their ability to address collective security risks like coordinated manipulation and disinformation.
federated social media services introduce new opportunities, but also significant new risks
New Opportunities: More spaces for our agents to spread propaganda
New Risks: People might learn facts we don’t want them to know
deleted by creator
- First they came for the lemmygrads, and I did not speak out because I was not a Marxist-Leninist
- Then they came for the Hexbears, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist
- Then they came for the lemmy.mls, and I did not speak out because I was not a security nerd
- Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me
Ooo, maybe we should have AI start cultivating information and choosing what to and to not show people too! Surely nothing bad will come from that, right?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Michael Bennett (D)
Shut the hell up Mikey
