this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2026
393 points (98.5% liked)
Fediverse vs Disinformation
1925 readers
69 users here now
Pointing out, debunking, and spreading awareness about state- and company-sponsored astroturfing on Lemmy and elsewhere. This includes social media manipulation, propaganda, and disinformation campaigns, among others.
Propaganda and disinformation are a big problem on the internet, and the Fediverse is no exception.
What's the difference between misinformation and disinformation? The inadvertent spread of false information is misinformation. Disinformation is the intentional spread of falsehoods.
By equipping yourself with knowledge of current disinformation campaigns by state actors, corporations and their cheerleaders, you will be better able to identify, report and (hopefully) remove content matching known disinformation campaigns.
Community rules
Same as instance rules, plus:
- No disinformation
- Posts must be relevant to the topic of astroturfing, propaganda and/or disinformation
Related websites
- EU vs Disinfo
- FactCheck.org
- PolitiFact
- Snopes
- Media Bias / Fact Check
- PEN America
- Media Matters
- FAIR
Matrix chat links
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They didn't call it anything though? It was a direct quote?
Also, if criminals are trying to kidnap you and you fight back, is that not self-defence?
As a non-American, what context an I missing, and what am I supposed to be outraged about based on that snippet of a quote?
Edit: of course I'm outraged by the whole invasion, but what did ABC do here other than publishing a quote?
The quoted part doesn't start until "overwhelming force". They added the self-defense part themselves.
Perhaps they should have also interviewed someone not from the Trump establishment about how a bunch of armed US kidnappers shooting at Venezuelan defence forces while abducting their President cannot be characterized as "self defense".
This is indeed a quote, so ABC is just repeating what the source said. However, the source is an American Joint Chiefs Chairman, he is saying that the invading American forces were fired upon and responded in self-defence. Which is a weird take.
you got it the wrong way around, the article is saying that the kidnap special forces "defended" themselves when the guards of the president attacked the invading kidnappers. defended is a very positive word and aims to put this illegal infiltration, murder and kidnapping (war without a declaration) in a good light. as a clueless teen i used to not think about the substance and material conditions of things. if the overwhelming majority of news i see calls something "defended", i would be swayed. a lot of adults are still clueless, only able to barely survive under the massive stress and pressure that these systems create. they do not care about this nuance out of necessity. they need to survive. this sneaky wordplay is aimed at them.
Yeah you're right, my mistake. I did in my haste read it completely the wrong way round, thinking they they were met with overwhelming self-defence on the Venezuelan side.
This is some BS.
I also read it this way at first. I mean, that's the only reading that makes sense after all
But it was the criminal kidnappers that claimed self-defence ....
Even if the quote was not just about the overwhelming part, publishing a straight quote does not get you off the hook when it's straight up lies. You should point out the quote is false.