Not sure how to report entire communities, but https://lemm.ee/c/vaccines just opened up and it’s a troll forum for vaccine misinformation.
Not sure how to report entire communities, but https://lemm.ee/c/vaccines just opened up and it’s a troll forum for vaccine misinformation.
Not a fan of some of the rhetoric and sourcing either but why not let them be? I never understood why it’s so important to silence these people if they don’t have any credibility anyways.
If they doxx or dogpile, sure, intervene, but they’re just posting links and having discussions among themselves.
There is absolutely no positive thing about keeping a deliberate disinformation platform alive. They exist to disinform other people, not themselves, and their aim is even more sinister than “just” disinforming about vaccines, because these places serves as fascist pipelines.
We all have intentions and motives behind what we post, don’t we? And we’re all just repeating what we’ve read or heard from other people, right? Very few of us were actually there in the moments things were done or decided. The rest of us are just repeating what we’ve been told, including me and you. We always have downvotes. We can follow or block communities on an individual level. However, deleting content based on your own perspective is silencing someone else’s voice or opinion and goes against basic human rights.
It’s the exact same idea as removing history or destroying literature. The bad is just as valuable as the good and we learn from them both. By censoring what you have determined is bad, you are silencing someone’s voice and permanently stealing someone else’s ability to see the full picture.
That’s very inspiring of you but the instance admin is still the admin and can do whatever he wants because he pays the bills. If the admin says “no banana for scale” then it is.
Well obviously lol, I don’t think anyone here would disagree with that
Edit: I’d appreciate a genuine reply to any of my comments. If you’re downvoting, please consider contributing to the conversation and sharing why you disagree so we can have a productive discussion.
If problematic groups are in echo chambers, they affirm each other. For example many ex-racists said that interacting people outside their hate bubble was the first step to get better.
In addition, wrong information also affects the passersby, who might not be active participants. It takes a lot more resources to correct knowledge with facts than it takes to spam disinformation and it slowly sticks.
So bursting bubbles and purging fake content seems like a viable solution.
What ever happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”? I think you need to realize that echo chambers of misinformation are a symptom, not a cause. Fighting the echo chambers but not the root causes of what pushes people there only emboldens them and leads to more polarization.
I think humanity left that behind around this accelerated polarization when they noticed that it takes zero effort to spam what is wrong and magnitudes of limited resources to do the correcting.
And if everyone just defends “yeah it’s ok to spread that even though it’s not right” we see the accelerationism growing.
The effect on internet platforms isn’t important to the 9 % commenting, it’s to the rest who don’t engage. They browse, they see things which aren’t real. Some they dismiss, some they don’t, but they all have an effect on their subconscious.
Of course the root cause should be sorted as well, it’s just that this is also a known issue with massive harm to prevent
And you’d rather haven them join Parlor/Truthsocial/whatever or just spend even more time on uncensored Youtube alternatives where they’re even less likely to encounter opposing opinions?
Isolating people and opinions by driving them into ever smaller circles of influences sounds like something Steve Bannon and his peers would approve most of.
Those communities aren’t popping up here for honest discussion, it’s to increase the reach of disinformation and/or trolling for the lulz.
Engaging with them accomplishes the exact opposite of what you suggest, since they are not here to argue in good faith.
Those are echo chambers
I don’t know if you noticed but you tried to put an opposite idea from your head to be mine
Your argument is irrational and inherently flawed to the point of leaning toward a bad faith origin.
The TL;DR is they think other people are dumb and stupid and can’t think for themselves, and take it upon themselves to police speech online. How can people keep from being deceived if not for the hallowed hall monitor! After all, the people calling for censorship are never wrong about what’s true and what’s not!
Yikes