The affinity for Tucker Carlson (as well as the other things) is from the sidebar. Apparently their familiarity with Western media is enough to know he is pro-Russian, but not enough to realize that expressing on a leftist forum that they like him, will make them glow a little bit.
The original issue was that they posted a story from Mint Press News, and I dropped them a friendly note that it was Russian propaganda, more or less assuming they had included it innocently (since there was nothing wrong at all that I can see with the particular story, or in fact with any of the stories in that community.)
Things escalated. Fun quotes by the mod from the ensuing conversation:
It’s actually not from “New Knowledge,” it’s from a US Senate report, but I doubt that will make this person believe it any more.
The real disinformation was inside us all this time. Of course, I was banned. Reason for the ban?
Clearly, their disinformation policy is lock tight.
PTB for sure, this seems like an alt-right troll instance honestly. Probably a good idea for instances who value safety and information accuracy to defederate from it as nothing good can come of a server like this.
Agreed
PTB
completely discredited conspiracy theory
Idiot Junior tweeted his own e-mails arranging quid-pro-quo interference for sanctions relief.
Multiple campaign managers were Russian agents. That’s not an accusation: they’re now registered under FARA.
The day after The Idiot fired Comey, he had a private Oval Office meeting with Russian spies. No American media was present. No American media was informed. We only know about them laughing it up thanks to the Russian photographers releasing the proof.
I miss when there was an argument worth having.
Yikes. I didnt know it was that obvious. I’m not in the US though so I guess we all have different focus points.
Even here, there’s such a deluge of bullshit, people can miss that they fucking said so, themselves.
PTB.
I think that instance was only hours old when I censured it in Fediseer and promptly de-federated from it.
Censure reason:
It’s like they turned the dumpster fire of worldnews [at] lemmy [dot] ml into an instance.
Yeah. If you want some surprises, too, go and look and which user from a different instance was helping them do some initial posts back in the “doing test posts and populating content” days. I guarantee you will find the answer to be interesting.
lol, I love that despite writing a thorough response they just latched onto the fact that you wrote keke.
Guy sounds like a tool
I’m not sure what else I could write to someone who is playing this “gotcha” of saying that some source tries to say that Russia was helping Trump in the election, and that proves that source is disinformation. It seems unlikely that I would be able to find some kind of factual basis that would sway them.
Actually: @AltMediaGuy@altmedia.house: You say you like Al Jazeera. I like them too. Here’s what they have to say about it:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/8/18/russia-worked-to-help-trump-in-2016-election-senate-panel
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/1/7/us-intelligence-putin-sought-to-help-trump-in-election
Like I say, I’m very doubtful that highlighting any kind of factual reason why what they’re saying is a bunch of nonsense, will accomplish anything at all except to illuminate the hypocrisy. But sure, what the hell, it’s good to do some due diligence.
@AltMediaGuy@altmedia.house also, quick question: Is literally everyone on your sidebar connected with Russia in some way? I picked Alastair Crooke at random (never heard of him before), and besides having worked very deeply within Western intelligence (which… you are fine with now? in this direction and this direction only, I guess?), he’s now writing frequently for the Strategic Culture Foundation.
Is there anyone on the sidebar who’s writing in the present day who is not connected to Russia in some way?
Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate are pretty shitty people in their own right
Idk if they’re getting funded, but Gray Zone definitely sucks. Their coverage is consistently atrocious, and they publish unmitigated apologia for some of the worst regimes on the planet (specifically Assad). I’ve made this point repeatedly, but Max Blumenthal - the Gray Zone’s founder - actually resigned from Al Akhbar after they began propagating the sort of Assad apologia he’s since made a career out of. He later published a piece addressing the merits of humanitarian intervention in Syria in a far more nuanced capacity than anything that’s ever appeared on Gray Zone. It seems pretty evident that he’s a grifter who’s found a very particular niche to profit off of.
I think you know the answer to your question. :)
What a nutjob. Seems you didn’t lose much from being banned from there, PTB.
Wow, every news site I thought was good is actually Russian propaganda. How do people even find this out? I couldn’t tell.
I found out by looking Mint Press up on Wikipedia, I can’t remember whether there was something that made me suspicious or if it was just checking up on sources randomly. I think I read something weird that made me want to look it up.
Most news sites are not Russian propaganda. Al Jazeera is good, a lot of Western sources are good, random people on Substack are often good. If they don’t come out of the blue with some kind of incongruous view on the Ukraine war then probably they are fine.
https://rss.ponder.cat/communities has a good selection. New York Times and The Atlantic have some weird stuff (including but certainly not limited to how they view Israel), and for the Drudge Report I have to have a massive blacklist of bad sources that I don’t host when Drudge reposts them. Other than those caveats, all those seem pretty good to me.
It’s getting to be where news from everywhere and anywhere is some sort of propaganda for some side. Are there any truly neutral new sites anymore?!
If your instance has a tesseract interface, you can turn on the option to show badges that give clues to the political slant and factual trustworthiness of news sites.
But where does that judgment come from, and how does a user know that this, itself, isn’t propaganda?
It comes from https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
If you want to know how they determine their ratings, you can look at their wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check
If you’re looking for some scientific way to figure out if you’re being propagandized, then this isn’t it. If you’re looking for something that’s almost always right on the mark, then it’s good enough for that. Which is why I said it “gives clues”, and didn’t say it’s the authoritative way to know.
It comes from https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
Oh then no thank you then. Even in that Wikipedia article they talk about the bias that the company has. In fact, Wikipeida says “Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific.”
So no, I’m not gonna use a site that just uses “feels” to determine if something is bias or not.
That’s a misrepresentation of how they work, but I’m not gonna hold a gun to your head. Mostly because I don’t feel it’s important enough to me that you use it to argue about the matter.
Thank you! (EDIT: No thank you)
EDIT:
Nevermind. MediaBiasFactCheck bot and website aren’t scientific at all.
