Pointing out patterns of manipulation isn’t the same as accusing individuals of bad faith. Influence operations are well-documented, and recognizing when engagement follows known tactics is about awareness, not personal attacks. If someone is engaging in good faith, discussing these concerns shouldn’t be an issue. Still, I believe it’s more prudent to acknowledge and warn others about the presence of bad actors on the platform than to ignore the reality that they exist.
Still, I believe it’s more prudent to acknowledge and warn others about the presence of bad actors on the platform than to ignore the reality that they exist.
you don’t actually know what the reality is. you are choosing to spread fud.
Skepticism and awareness don’t require absolute certainty—they require recognizing patterns, weighing evidence, and applying critical thinking. Intelligence agencies, cybersecurity experts, and investigative journalists don’t operate with perfect knowledge of every individual actor; they analyze behaviors, tactics, and known strategies to assess likely influence operations. That’s exactly what I’m doing here.
What’s not up for debate is whether bad actors are present in online spaces. There is overwhelming, verifiable evidence that state-backed influence campaigns, misinformation networks, and coordinated propaganda efforts exist and are active on most notable social platforms. This isn’t speculation; it’s been extensively documented by cybersecurity researchers, investigative journalists, and intelligence agencies across multiple countries. The only real question is to what extent they are influencing a given conversation on Lemmy in particular, not whether they are here at all.
Dismissing these concerns simply because I can’t produce a list of every bot and handled account is shortsighted. That’s like saying misinformation campaigns don’t exist unless you can personally name every individual behind them. The research I shared—along with extensive documentation from reputable sources—makes it clear that these operations exist. Ignoring that reality doesn’t make it go away.
You keep labeling this discussion as “spreading FUD” without engaging with the substance of the argument. But dismissing any discussion of manipulation tactics as paranoia actually discourages people from critically assessing how online spaces are influenced. If you disagree with my conclusions, that’s fine. But refusing to acknowledge the undeniable presence of organized misinformation efforts while insisting that discussing them is somehow harmful only serves to shut down necessary discourse.
I’m trying to discourage you from making baseless accusations against other users. those accusations can be phrased “this is what propagandists do” or similar. that’s a total cop out.
if someone is spreading misinformation, most communities and instances have a rule against that; report it. if someone is saying something that is true and happens to align with known propaganda, the situation gets very sticky. if you feel you must refute something unsaid, I strongly recommend that you clarify, before and afte, that you are not making some accusation against the particular user.
personally, I would simply nuance their oblique fact to try to reframe it in a way that doesn’t benefit the (suspected) propaganda message, or leave it alone.
accusations of shilling are fucking toxic to the community. it requires a high level of proof.
If someone is engaging in good faith, discussing these concerns shouldn’t be an issue.
no, it’s a red herring. either what they are saying is true and reasonable or it is not. poisoning the well with implications of bad faith is, itself, bad faith.
Pointing out patterns of manipulation isn’t the same as accusing individuals of bad faith. Influence operations are well-documented, and recognizing when engagement follows known tactics is about awareness, not personal attacks. If someone is engaging in good faith, discussing these concerns shouldn’t be an issue. Still, I believe it’s more prudent to acknowledge and warn others about the presence of bad actors on the platform than to ignore the reality that they exist.
you don’t actually know what the reality is. you are choosing to spread fud.
Skepticism and awareness don’t require absolute certainty—they require recognizing patterns, weighing evidence, and applying critical thinking. Intelligence agencies, cybersecurity experts, and investigative journalists don’t operate with perfect knowledge of every individual actor; they analyze behaviors, tactics, and known strategies to assess likely influence operations. That’s exactly what I’m doing here.
What’s not up for debate is whether bad actors are present in online spaces. There is overwhelming, verifiable evidence that state-backed influence campaigns, misinformation networks, and coordinated propaganda efforts exist and are active on most notable social platforms. This isn’t speculation; it’s been extensively documented by cybersecurity researchers, investigative journalists, and intelligence agencies across multiple countries. The only real question is to what extent they are influencing a given conversation on Lemmy in particular, not whether they are here at all.
Dismissing these concerns simply because I can’t produce a list of every bot and handled account is shortsighted. That’s like saying misinformation campaigns don’t exist unless you can personally name every individual behind them. The research I shared—along with extensive documentation from reputable sources—makes it clear that these operations exist. Ignoring that reality doesn’t make it go away.
You keep labeling this discussion as “spreading FUD” without engaging with the substance of the argument. But dismissing any discussion of manipulation tactics as paranoia actually discourages people from critically assessing how online spaces are influenced. If you disagree with my conclusions, that’s fine. But refusing to acknowledge the undeniable presence of organized misinformation efforts while insisting that discussing them is somehow harmful only serves to shut down necessary discourse.
I’m trying to discourage you from making baseless accusations against other users. those accusations can be phrased “this is what propagandists do” or similar. that’s a total cop out.
if someone is spreading misinformation, most communities and instances have a rule against that; report it. if someone is saying something that is true and happens to align with known propaganda, the situation gets very sticky. if you feel you must refute something unsaid, I strongly recommend that you clarify, before and afte, that you are not making some accusation against the particular user.
personally, I would simply nuance their oblique fact to try to reframe it in a way that doesn’t benefit the (suspected) propaganda message, or leave it alone.
accusations of shilling are fucking toxic to the community. it requires a high level of proof.
you can’t produce one.
no, it’s a red herring. either what they are saying is true and reasonable or it is not. poisoning the well with implications of bad faith is, itself, bad faith.