US warns of Chinese disinformation. China says that's disinformation
A US State Department report that accuses the Chinese government of expanding disinformation efforts is “in itself disinformation,” Beijing’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed Saturday.
The ministry shot back after the State Department issued a striking report this week in which it accused the Chinese government of expanding efforts to control information and to disseminate propaganda and disinformation that promotes “digital authoritarianism” in China and around the world.
The US report, issued by the Global Engagement Center on Thursday, alleged that China spends billions of dollars a year on foreign information manipulation and warned that Chinese leader Xi Jinping had “significantly expanded” efforts to “shape the global information environment.”
It also underlined US concerns about China as a main military competitor and key rival in the battle over ideas and global disinformation.
This is funny. It also reflects in Lemmy. For example, take this tankie comment claiming "zelensky made having peace negotiations with putin ILLEGAL", based on an article which says "Zelensky’s decree released Tuesday declares that holding negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin has become impossible after his decision to annex four regions of Ukraine."
Then watch how mods from lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml ban users and delete comments which question their narrative.
Cherry on top: A user from this curated bubble remarks that "Nobody actually has any argument against this", because of course they are shielded from comments who pointed out the inaccuracy of the claim, and don't question it themselves.
Compare yourself:
Now read that comment in the basement of this thread again:
Had to open the links up in web version to see the difference. Ngl, it's something I expected lemmygrad to do. I'm glad to be on lemm.ee. I love the admins and their transparency and how their policies are democratically decided like when we voted to defederate Threads.
I also think there is nothing wrong with stuff like this and it's what lemmy was made for. If one instance doesn't like something, they can remove it, other instances may still want to see it, if members don't like it, they can move or have their own instance but can still interact. It's the beauty of decentralization.
But don't you see that's NATO propaganda. Want proof? Have a look at who posted it.
to be fair it's lemmygrad so it's the worse of qorse, not exactly lemmy in general
What are you talking about? The first reply to that comment has more upvotes and debunks it.
Yes, from our point of view. This is fine. My point is, compare to their point of view.
All comments rectifying the lie got removed. Users from that instance see a whole other story. Only now that weird comment makes sense:
The OP article seems to talk about a similar situation, just in geopolitics, while we play in Lemmy. Two parties with very different narratives. One is heavily filtering and censoring, which allows people living in that bubble to honestly believe what they are being told. Because that's all they see, their Big Brother takes care.
Sorry, I am unsure how this federation thing works but your explanation made it much clearer.
It's unclear what you mean with "that comment", since my comment refers to three distinct comments, and two different views of a comment section, with different replies and upvotes. If you can narrow down your question (preferrably with a link), I will try to answer it.
https://lemm.ee/comment/3929526
Where
They are correct though whether you want to accept that or not. Zelensky has rejected peace talks because he is deranged and thinks he can take back Crimea. This user just put that in a weird way saying it's illegal.
Although he has made opposition parties illegal, and reporting against the war illegal as well. He has arrested a US citizen named Gonzalo Lira for his reporting
Exactly, legal/illegal is a well defined term. The president of Ukraine rejecting something does not make it "ILLEGAL".
Then go to Ukraine and speak out against his conditions for peace talks. You'll be arrested.
Typically when a country is at war due to being invaded, they don't take kindly to people pushing the invaders agenda.
Where in Gonzalo Lira's reporting did he push the Russian's agenda?
Trying to criticize a leader's decision that will kill thousands more should be free and openly allowed for their own citizens. Unfortunately it is not.
I saw some coverage from The Daily Beast that suggested Lira was spouting lots of misinformation, some of which were in line with general Russian talking points. Make of that what you will ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well that's not really convincing but I'll look into it thanks.
Do the same in Russia about Russian terms and you'll have the same treatment, if you don't fall from a window beforehand.
Where did I say Russia was better?
[citation needed]. Which law, which section, which paragraph.
https://www.pressenza.com/2022/03/witchhunt-in-ukraine-against-journalists-activists-and-left-wing-politicians/
They can be arrested for a variety of made up charges to keep them quiet. There are some examples for you.
Indeed, Russia arrests people for things like saying that Crimea is Ukraine.
...have you actually read the article? Are you aware that it's talking about Russian suppression of journalism? That Ukraine got them out of Russian prison via prisoner exchanges?
That is your response to a thread starting out with a post pointing out tankies not bothering to read the sources they quote? To quote a source you didn't read?
???
You posted this link: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/here-are-stories-5-reporters-persecuted-ukraine-doing-their-job-past
That's what I responded to. I'll have to add "quote the link right away" to my toolbox now, are you happy.
As to Tkachev: He's a known separatist sympathiser. Yes, Ukraine arrests collaborators. You'll of course find plenty of Russian and Russia-influenced media claiming that every single one of them was a saint.
Looks like your own propaganda. Must have had it up on another tab.
You know very well that you're lying, I fished the thing out of my browser history. You may fool others, but you can't fool yourself.
Nice try, but I didn't post that link.
I can assure you you're only saying this for the audience. Because you know what you did and gaslighting me won't work.
not, you'll not, now shut up
https://www.pressenza.com/2022/03/witchhunt-in-ukraine-against-journalists-activists-and-left-wing-politicians/
https://www.pressenza.com/2023/05/putins-war-in-ukraine-is-headed-toward-a-conclusion-while-bidens-war-in-ukraine-is-just-beginning-to-heat-up/
lmao the ammount of stupidity and russia propaganda in that shit lmao, give me at least a source that don't say that much lies and shit
Then quote and disprove them.
Zelensky had been talking a lot with Russia while Crimea was occupied, while they already occupied parts of Luhansk and Donetsk (by proxy). Even after the 2022 there were talks, you might remember the pictures of delegations sitting around a table in Belarus.
If you had read the article in question (or in fact OP's comment) you would've seen that it said:
Now, I will grant that yes of course that was a political move. He was known to be a Russia-friendly president, elected (among other things) because people thought Poroshenko was too heavy-handed. Such a declaration simply makes clear to the Ukrainian people that he's drawing a line in the sand, that his patience with Russia has ended.
And can you fucking blame him Russia just annexed four regions. How much talking do you think, say, Vietnam would do if China annexed four of their provinces or whatever they're called.
Throughout the conflict this has been his demand to return Crimea for peace talks. This was never a realistic option.
Yes I know his current stance, but he has always called for the return of Crimea.
I understand how terrible this situation is for Ukraine as a whole, and I want it to end. The demands Zelensky has made from the beginning has only made certain that the war would continue. What we need is a ceasefire and neither side is making reasonable demands.
So... when I break into your home and eat your cookies, what are you going to do? Tell yourself that you should accept a ceasefire and let me have the couch?
I'm sick and tired of this vulgar pacifism that does nothing but embolden aggressors. No: You should punch me in the face and boot me the fuck out. If you don't I'll leave to do the exact same thing to your neighbour once the cookies are gone, and the flour and sugar is gone -- because yes I'm first going to make you to make more, doormat.
Ask NATO, they're the aggressors that provoked this conflict. They expanded around Russia and heightened tensions by putting nuclear missiles in Turkey to provoke the Cuban missile crisis, so you know Russians don't want nuclear missiles in Ukraine. Same as we wouldn't want Russian missiles in Mexico.
That's the worst take yet.
Claiming NATO actions at the height of the cold war were aggression towards the modern Russian state is ridiculous.
Except that was before disarmament? Which the US and USSR (and now Russia and many others) signed on to. Trying to say that 50yo actions taken at the height of the cold war justify Russia's modern actions is outright horseshit.
Not what I said. I'm saying Russians remember feeling threatened by the combined force of NATO and Ukraine trying to join provoked the invasion.
🤣🤣
When you have no knowledge of history
Why did all those states want to join NATO? Might it have something to do with the continued occupation of Moldova, the invasion of Georgia, and their experience they had while being Russian vassals, being subjects to deportations and worse? Ever talked to an Estonian?
Wanna talk about nukes in Kaliningrad and Belarus? Wanna talk about the Budapest memorandum? Wanna talk about China's nuclear guarantees to Ukraine and wonder why Russia is only making nuclear threats against NATO, but not Ukraine?
By the end of the war, the Yugoslavs had killed 1,500[37] to 2,131 combatants.[38] 10,317 civilians were killed or missing, with 85% of those being Kosovar Albanian and some 848,000 were expelled from Kosovo.[39] The NATO bombing killed about 1,000 members of the Yugoslav security forces in addition to between 489 and 528 civilians. It destroyed or damaged bridges, industrial plants, hospitals, schools, cultural monuments, private businesses as well as barracks and military installations.
The difference between NATO expansion and Russia's expansion:
NATO expands by having democracies decide to join. Note for this to happen, the countries in question must want to join. If you insist, you can blame NATO for accepting these applications.
Russia expands by rolling in with tanks, killing people and committing war crimes. Exactly the reason why all those countries want to join NATO, to have some protection from that bully.
But sure, the defensive alliance is the actual aggressor, not the country starting invasions. /s
Russia voted to join and was rejected dummy.
Yes, "all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia" was suspended by NATO on 1 April 2014, in response to Russia annexing Crimea, which also broke the Budapest Memorandum.
No country has the right to join an alliance with other countries. You can ask, they can reject.
Try to include arguments instead of personal attacks, if you can.
This was over 20 years ago when Putin became president of Russia. Also the Soviets applied in 1954 as well.
Ok, so what does this mean? Is the idea NATO should accept all countries who apply? Should not reject applications?
I believe it means that NATO's goal is to balkanize Russia, not to protect Europe from them but to exploit their natural resources. Currently all the oil in Russia belongs to a state owned company so the west does not like that.
I love me some mental gymnastics just as much as everyone else, but for a minute lets agree for some reason Putin has a reason to be worried about "NATO expansionism"... didnt he e already have the upper hand circa 2014 and Crimea? Was he feeling just as threatened? Somehow even after mobilizing, Europe was still energy dependant, the US was about as friendly with Russia in a long time during the trump presidency, I've had the impression that much remained neutral before the full scale invasion aside from trade quarrels, nobody was talking about arming Ukraine in some sort of cold war era missile crisis. Which I would certainly hope the change from 3 day "special operation " into this fucking shitshow should tell you all you need: it is about the land. And if you're wanting the former Soviet Union coming back to its glory through force, just say it.
You're very ignorant of the situation.
Thanks