Does MMO-C Leadership Have a Plan for State Sponsored Propaganda?

[Magnagarde]

I'll take "Snake Island" for 100, Alex. Bonus round if "Ghost of Kyiv" is hidden in there too.

Should it all be censored?

- - - Updated - - -


In the era of disinformation every side is pushing their side forth. If you can't see that, you are deliberately misunderstanding or misreprenting the issue at hand.

One's own verified information is the best tool to fight disinformation.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, no. This is false. It's just "both sides are equally bad" fallacious nonsense.

Disinfo should be opposed for its existence, not because of which "side" is producing it.

What I believe he meant with that is that Ukraine has had its own share of false information come out since the start of the war, which would - according to this rule and due to being reposted by a number of users who were misguided by disinformation - result in the punishment for spreading propaganda.

[Vegas82]

One's own verified information is the best tool to fight disinformation.

Really? Because that's what we hear from the disinfo junkies. They verified the info and the rest of us are just ignorant.

[Endus]

What he meant is that Ukraine has had its own share of false information, which would - according to this rule and due to being reposted by a number of users who were misguided by disinformation - result in the punishment for spreading propaganda.

We're not just talking about Ukraine. And again, trying to make it about "sides" is completely missing the point, and attempting to introduce partisan chicanery, because you'd rather engage in blind support of a "side" rather than prevent disinformation.

[Magnagarde]

Really? Because that's what we hear from the disinfo junkies. They verified the info and the rest of us are just ignorant.

So dinsinfo junkies like to verify information before accepting it? What do informed people do then? They don't attempt to verify the information they're given?

[Endus]

So dinsinfo junkies like to verify information before accepting it? What do informed people do then? They don't attempt to verify the information they're given?

I guarantee you don't actually understand what "verifying information" actually means, in practice.

It doesn't mean "confirm the information from two or more sources", for instance. Which is a trivial measure that propaganda can often meet with ease.

[Magnagarde]

We're not just talking about Ukraine. And again, trying to make it about "sides" is completely missing the point, and attempting to introduce partisan chicanery, because you'd rather engage in blind support of a "side" rather than prevent disinformation.

We're not talking about Ukraine, but this post is clearly motivated by Ukraine and the Russian disinformation campaign. I am very familiar with how damaging misinformation can be; I am in fact more familiar with it than I care to admit and I support supressing disinformation, but I'm against a free-for-all rule that isn't specific to the disinformation it is supposed to address. For example, a rule against the denial of the Holocaust, the genocide in Srebrenica, the Armenian genocide and more is perfectly reasonable and is to be expected, but with a rule about "state sponsored propaganda" any discussion could fall prey to punishment if it is in the interest of a specific government.

Partisan chicanery is not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about an example of how people, who are well-meaning and who want to pass on news, could potentially end up punished because they themselves are victims of disinformation; the example the other user gave is the Ghost of Kiev, which is what many posted about when it first appeared, even though they obviously weren't propagandists.

[Vegas82]

So dinsinfo junkies like to verify information before accepting it? What do informed people do then? They don't attempt to verify the information they're given?

They claim they verified it by getting it from Tucker and the like. It’s a pretty common tactic. It’s like with Trump’s Ukraine call. They said everyone needed to read the transcript to verify it was nbd, then turned around and said they hadn’t read it. The word of Trump and his cronies was enough verification for them.

[Endus]

We're not talking about Ukraine, but this post is clearly motivated by Ukraine and the Russian disinformation campaign. I am very familiar with how damaging misinformation can be; I am in fact more familiar with it than I care to admit and I support supressing disinformation, but I'm against a free-for-all rule that isn't specific to the disinformation it is supposed to address. For example, a rule against the denial of the Holocaust, the genocide in Srebrenica, the Armenian genocide and more is perfectly reasonable and is to be expected, but with a rule about "state sponsored propaganda" any discussion could fall prey to punishment if it is in the interest of a specific government.

Partisan chicanery is not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about an example of how people, who are well-meaning and who want to pass on news, could potentially end up punished because they themselves are victims of disinformation; the example the other user gave is the Ghost of Kiev, which is what many posted about when it first appeared, even though they obviously weren't propagandists.

We're talking about a 5-point infraction. The same "punishment" you get for calling another poster an "asshole" or bumping a months-old thread for no reason. We're not talking about prison or flaying someone with lashes, or something. Get some perspective.

[Magnagarde]

They claim they verified it by getting it from Tucker and the like. It’s a pretty common tactic. It’s like with Trump’s Ukraine call. They said everyone needed to read the transcript to verify it was nbd, then turned around and said they hadn’t read it. The word of Trump and his cronies was enough verification for them.

It just had to bring us back to Trump and Tucker and whoever is still missing from the bunch.

I'm speaking of genuine verification, not "waiting for my personal favourite channel to confirm my suspicions" kind of verification.

[Vegas82]

It just had to bring us back to Trump and Tucker and whoever is still missing from the bunch.

I'm speaking of genuine verification, not "waiting for my personal favourite channel to confirm my suspicions" kind of verification.

And that’s the issue I was bringing up. While you claim “self verification” is the best route the people who feed on disinfo also promote that horseshit. Just their own version of it. See VAERS for reference.

[Magnagarde]

We're talking about a 5-point infraction. The same "punishment" you get for calling another poster an "asshole" or bumping a months-old thread for no reason. We're not talking about prison or flaying someone with lashes, or something. Get some perspective.

If it isn't a big deal, then why introduce it in the first place? It's a weird take to have.

The possibility of an infraction over insufficiently specified reasons stifles discussion, even if it is just a 5-point infraction.

- - - Updated - - -

And that’s the issue I was bringing up. While you claim “self verification” is the best route the people who feed on disinfo also promote that horseshit. Just their own version of it. See VAERS for reference.

Well, I don't disagree with you at all then.

[Endus]

If it isn't a big deal, then why introduce it in the first place? It's a weird take to have.

This is a ridiculous statement to make, and demonstrates bad faith.

The possibility of an infraction over insufficiently specified reasons stifles discussion, even if it is just a 5-point infraction.

Stifling bad discussion is the intended and ideal outcome of such a rule. If you can't be sure what you're posting isn't disinformation, you probably shouldn't be posting it.

[Magnagarde]

Stifling bad discussion is the intended and ideal outcome of such a rule. If you can't be sure what you're posting isn't disinformation, you probably shouldn't be posting it.

Who determines what is a bad discussion and what isn't? How does one know what a bad discussion is? And I'm not talking about glaringly obvious examples, such as the ones I mentioned in one of the posts above that you quoted. I'm talking about things and examples such as the "Ghost of Kiev", proven to be false.

It's akin to putting up a speed sign without specifying what speed represents the limit. Everyone's got their own take, the internet is highly divided and I dare say radicalized on the most trivial of issues.

[Saradain]

Which side propaganda should be allowed?

Which side unconfirmed bullshit is better?

The genocidal aggressors (= Russia) trying to cover up their one-per-10-minutes war crimes, or Ukraine having a figure of hope keeping up the morale of their righteous cause of trying to survive an apocalypse by Russia?

[Darkeon]

Which side unconfirmed bullshit is better?

The genocidal aggressors (= Russia) trying to cover up their one-per-10-minutes war crimes, or Ukraine having a figure of hope keeping up the morale of their righteous cause of trying to survive an apocalypse by Russia?

This thread is about how state sponsored propaganda is bad. Why would we pick sides?
Propaganda is bad is bad. Be it in Ukraine-Russia, Dems-Reps, Trump-Hillary, etc.

[Saradain]

This thread is about how state sponsored propaganda is bad. Why would we pick sides?
Propaganda is bad is bad. Be it in Ukraine-Russia, Dems-Reps, Trump-Hillary, etc.

I guess to me propaganda is about ill intent. Russia has it. Ukraine does not. Urban legend vs covering war crimes.

[Darkeon]

I guess to me propaganda is about ill intent. Russia has it. Ukraine does not. Urban legend vs covering war crimes.

That's fair and all. Still state sponsored propaganda though.
And who gets to decide which one is the acceptable one?
And what about on the next divisive situation where the lines are not so easily separated?

[Saradain]

That's fair and all. Still state sponsored propaganda though.
And who gets to decide which one is the acceptable one?
And what about on the next divisive situation where the lines are not so easily separated?

Well, we can call all these stories as propaganda then and ban them all. I have a feeling though that it's mostly the pro-russian gentlemen and women who would remain banned far, far longer. No names needed to be mentioned. And whataboutism, that definitely should be considered propaganda as well. Justifying war crimes because someone else, at some other time, did something else, to someone else.

[Darkeon]

Well, we can call all these stories as propaganda then and ban them all. I have a feeling though that it's mostly the pro-russian gentlemen and women who would remain banned far, far longer. No names needed to be mentioned. And whataboutism, that definitely should be considered propaganda as well. Justifying war crimes because someone else, at some other time, did something else, to someone else.

What about all the other logical fallacies that make conversations in this forum cumbersome and infuriating? Ban them all next, right?

[Saradain]

What about all the other logical fallacies that make conversations in this forum cumbersome and infuriating? Ban them all next, right?

Depends on the severity?

Someone being dum dum and making non-sensical argument is one thing, while certain professional posters straight up having a conveyor belt line spewing war crime supporting agenda is once more about ill intent.

Human judgement needed. Context matters?