this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2026

96 points (100.0% liked)

Fediverse vs Disinformation

fediverse_vs_disinfo@lemmy.dbzer0.com

2,394 readers

1,902 active

147 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

Matrix chat links

founded 2 years ago

moderators

Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com

FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone

FundMECFS@lemmy.dbzer0.com

technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com

unruffled@anarchist.nexus

Kimmel's ABC show won't air interview with Democrat because of Trump FCC threats (arstechnica.com)

submitted 2 months ago by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/fediverse_vs_disinfo@lemmy.dbzer0.com

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I interviewed Donald Trump when he was running for president in 2015, and at that time when he was the one sitting next to me, he seemed to have no problem with the idea of talk show hosts interviewing candidates. In fact, he was very eager to come back for another interview, which he did just before he became the nominee in 2016.

But for some reason, and I can’t seem to figure out what that reason is, something has changed. Now that he’s president, his FCC has threatened me, threatened our show, threatened our network, ABC, our affiliates, our local stations, based on simple, traditional editorial decisions, guest bookings it would seem they don’t like.

Kimmel said the decision to put the interview on YouTube was made out of consideration for local stations that could face FCC threats to their broadcast licenses.

all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Video of interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLDE9LrGpNk

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

I swear, Talarico has had more publicity because of the attempt to stop his segments from airing. Just like with Stephen Colbert.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Talarico is 100% perfect to represent Texas and if he wins, this will be a call out to all of the other red states to have more people like Talarico. He's very religious, but that's why the red states will love him. All of this attention is probably scaring the shit out of the magas. Trump has to win and why trump is saying to cheat. They're desperate at this point and don't really see streisand effects as a thing, for some reason. See reflecting pool.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago

His version of religion is the proper one, in my opinion. I'm not in Texas, so I can't vote for him, but hearing him talk about his religion just proves that the hateful bigots are just using it as an excuse for their disgusting rhetoric and actions. I feel like he's a good person who is religious, vs a bad person who thinks they're good because of religion.

parent

[–] Blibly@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

I sure hope we're organzing some bussing for his voters to get to the polls. GOP will absolutely be closing stations and preventing mail in ballots from being counted

parent

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

This is the same federal government that's now offering (non-existent) $5,000 checks to elect them.

So yeah, this sucks, but it's sort of small fries when democracy is clearly already dead.

[–] Gerudo@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago

I wonder if they could have gotten away with a dramatic interpretation of the interview with puppets or something. Do some malicious compliance.

[–] Penguincoder@beehaw.org 1 point 2 months ago*

Freedom of the press strikes again.

33 comments in c/DeclineIntoCensorship@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 24 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Do it anyways, if they take ABC down then sue them for free speech amendment violations.

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago

Equal time law.

parent

[–] Waffle@infosec.pub 9 points 2 months ago

Kinda stupid that they don't just use James Talarico's name in the article title.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

Won't air interview because ABC caved.

[–] Malica@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago

Good interview, highly recommend checking it out on YouTube

[–] mrmisses@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (27 children)

If the next president doesn't wipe Fox News off the map I will be pissed

hideshow 27 child comments

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago (25 children)

Your solution to the federal government infringing on first amendment rights is for the federal government to continue infringing on first amendment rights?

parent

hideshow 25 child comments

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I hear you but when one side refuses to follow established law and suffers no consequences, it's playing a loser's game It will be fucking ugly but we probably have to finish the civil war since it was allowed to fester and grow and here we are in 2026 with a mockery of a government system.

Continuing on and expecting something to change in a completely rigged game is insane .

parent

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

not the OP but i don't agree with your premise.

Fox has broken the social contract and as Popper pointed out, if you allow. intolerance to prosper, you get... an intolerant society.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago

Who do you trust to make the decision on what speech is acceptable? I don't trust anyone to make that choice for me.

parent

[–] Mannimarco@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 months ago

Yeah just let FOX do their thing, it's going great so far

parent

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (20 children)

You're claiming that large corporations should have first amendment rights?

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (19 children)

I'm claiming people should have first amendment rights. Corporations are a collection of people.

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (18 children)

And we circle back to exactly the sort of dipshit rationale that has fucked the us over for so long.

Corporations are not individuals. They do not get the rights that humans do. The end.

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (17 children)

I just double checked the first amendment and try as I might I couldn't find the word "individuals" anywhere. I did see "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" though.

parent

hideshow 17 child comments

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (16 children)

Probably because they thought nobody would be stupid enough to expect that it applied to organizations.

You're just essentially arguing that citizens united was a good thing. Which is reprehensively stupid.

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (15 children)

If you want to control speech you're no better than maga. I dont care what kind of excuses or justifications you come up with. You and all the other authoritarians can fuck off.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (14 children)

Lol. Fuck no. I'm an authoritarian for disagreeing with the logic that brought us citizens fucking United?

Man, Lemmy is remarkable today.

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (13 children)

You're an authoritarian for advocating congressional infringement of speech. The only difference between you and MAGA is the justifications you come up with.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (12 children)

I can do much worse. I also don't believe that the building a business is housed in does not deserve free speech.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (11 children)

Don't you have some books to burn adolf?

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (10 children)

I also don't think birds should have free speech. Fuck those guys.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

You're entitled to your opinion. But here in reality, the first amendment doesn't apply to birds. It doesn't apply to corporations. It doesn't apply to people. It applies to Congress, and describes things that they are not allowed to abridge. If you hate the first amendment so much, petition to change it. Nobody can legally stop you.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (8 children)

It doesn't apply to corporations.

This has been the perfect Lemmy conversation because you finally circled back around to negating the point that you originally made and have been defending so vehemently.

Nice work.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Bullshit, I've been consistent. The amendment applies to Congress. It prohibits the government from restricting speech. It doesn't specify whose speech. They're not allowed to restrict anyone's. If you ever bothered to read it, the wording makes that pretty clear. All 10 amendments in the bill of rights are structured that way.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

Corporate speech doesn't apply and is restricted all of the time

Why? Because our rights protect people. Corporations should be classified differently.

Btw, I'm now ordering the restriction of free speech for autobots. And you cant stop me. Lol.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

If you want the government to act without limits entirely based on vibes you must love the current administration.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

You may be right. Corporations may actually constitute individual people, given your willingness to suck their dicks.

Corporate entities are not individuals and have different rights and responsibilities.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

I checked the first amendment again and nope, still doesn't say anything about individuals. Still says "Congress shall make no law".

Your pal trump, who is currently abridging the ABC corporation's right to free speech using essentially the same rationale as you, is going to lose his lawsuit.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You do realize that you're vouching for Trump right now. Corporations are the people period. The moment we start elevating corporations to having lights, we're going to immediately diminish ours.

You act like you're fighting for the people's rights, but you're doing the contrary. Right now you're just sucking corporate dick.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

Whatever you say maga

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago

XD

parent

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago

Fox news is not FCC regulated.

parent