The reposts and expressions of shock from public figures followed quickly after a user on the social platform X who uses a pseudonym claimed that a government website had revealed “skyrocketing” rates of voters registering without a photo ID in three states this year — two of them crucial to the presidential contest.
“Extremely concerning,” X owner Elon Musk replied twice to the post this past week.
“Are migrants registering to vote using SSN?” Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, an ally of former President Donald Trump, asked on Instagram, using the acronym for Social Security number.
Trump himself posted to his own social platform within hours to ask, “Who are all those voters registering without a Photo ID in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Arizona??? What is going on???”
…
Yet by the time they tried to correct the record, the false claim had spread widely. In three days, the pseudonymous user’s claim amassed more than 63 million views on X, according to the platform’s metrics. A thorough explanation from Richer attracted a fraction of that, reaching 2.4 million users.
The incident sheds light on how social media accounts that shield the identities of the people or groups behind them through clever slogans and cartoon avatars have come to dominate right-wing political discussion online even as they spread false information.
Asimov: *nails it*
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
The bad guys since high school and in countless tales and yet still in governments and corner suites and at pulpits: *weaponizes it*
You know who you are: *treats it all like team sports* *thinks is player* *is ball*
I think this is a great comment and I extend the same thinking to the bullshit/ magical thinking people engage in around science/ medicine denial-ism, new age mysticism, and conspiratorial thinking/ I’d rather believe a good story modes of thinking.
100% its a part of our political system, but as Asimov states, its in our cultural life as well, and I have no patience for it. I call it out when I see it and if that makes me the ass hole, so be it. Its a burden I’ll bear to have conversations grounded in reality or not at all.
Some of these are clearly wedge-driving divisive trolls posing as leftists. Especially those touting voting 3rd party or not voting.
This is absolutely rampant on .ml and it drives me nuts that their predilections for stupid campism causes them to not just allow, but actively protect right wing trolls.
You know electoral system is truely garbage when voting for 3rd party is considered “bad”. Not a lot of freedum going on in the US.
Additionally have you also considered some people dont agree with your political view, so not everything has to be a conspiracy
Yep I do agree it’s bullshit. The FPTP combined with Electoral College has utterly fucked our country. I really wish we could vote for independents or 3rd party and not totally fuck everything. Unfortunately that won’t happen until changes most probably comes through Democrats as it has historically worth most other issues.
To your second point, don’t know, it just seems extremely self-defeating to the point that one has to wonder…
Some of these are clearly wedge-driving divisive (sic) trolls posing as moderates. Especially those hectoring voters that vote with their conscience now that attitudes toward a current genocide is making it impossible to vote for either of the frontrunners.
- What’s funny is I’m not even a moderate
- I’ve just done the comparative analysis in knowing that (a) the election outcome is inevitable where 1 of these 2 candidates will be in office whether you vote or not, and (b) one would commit MORE genocide than the other guy.
- You thus can still vote your conscience.
Let me crystal clear. I do not think that your position or attitude are moderate either. Haranguing people to vote against their conscience is a bad look. Big genocide, small genocide, both are genocide. If that overloads some people’s ‘election calculus’ it’s a reasonable and engaged reaction. If anything talking down to them is more likely to turn them off voting at all.
Normally I’d agree to each their own but I truly cannot grasp how anyone can come to the conclusion that when the two options are inevitable, they would choose more genocide over less genocide. It quite literally means less people dying. It’s the only logical and ethical choice.
Voting for big genocide or voting for small genocide is irreconcilably voting for genocide for some people. It’s a morally cognizant choice for some to not want to put the endorsement of their vote on either.
I’ll never not believe that is logically and ethically-flawed thinking, sorry. A vote doesn’t mean “I Endorse Genocide,” it just means, “I am doing the thing between two inevitable choices whether I vote or not that will help Palestinians, Ukrainians, and women’s rights more than the other option.”
If merely one less child dies, then it is clearly worth it to vote — right?
It is ‘rational’ attitudes such as this that MLK bemoaned in his Birmingham jail letters. Order above justice. An order in which the boot is not on your neck. So you minimize its dehumanizing brutality in relation to the maintenance of the day-to-day comforts you enjoy.
Hypothetically: if Biden was sending weapons and financial support to Russia in support of their war efforts but mildly denouncing Putin when pressed; and Trump was pledging full throated support of Putin and offering to nuke Kyiv; would you still feel so enthusiastic about voting for Biden or for your moral calculus? Might you lament the electoral system that has put this decision before you. Might you protest this mockery of democratic choice. Even if you internally still cede to moral calculus, might you continue to make your displeasure known and apply whatever pressure was within your purview as a voter to make. Might you be offended by people demanding you not only vote for Biden regardless your rightful concerns about Putin and the sovereignity of Ukrainians but also try to insinuate that you are part of some foreign operation to undermine the election for voicing your concerns?
You thus can still vote your conscience
Not if my conscious isn’t ok with voting for a genocide-doer at all
Then you risk letting the person who will commit genocide even more.
How is more genocide better than less genocide for your conscience?
Then you risk letting the person who will commit genocide even more.
Wrong, as I don’t live in a swing state. You know, like the majority of Americans?
I can safely not vote for either knowing that my state isn’t going to go to Trump. I even personally know 2 people who voted Trump last election who are going third party this time around, so I’m DOUBLE-covrred.
I just love seeing people online automatically assume people are in swing states (or that the EC doesn’t exist) and try to guilt trip people. It’s hilarious
Wait, was it your conscience or is it because you don’t live in a swing-state…? Because you dodged the question:
How is more genocide better than less genocide for your conscience?
If you live in a firmly blue state that will vote for Biden, then sure your entire point is moot. But just like how red states have turned blue or at least purple (Arizona), blue or swing-states can turn red (e.g., Ohio). So it might be worth voting just to ensure that trend continues.
Because Republicans love this messaging you’re now promoting; for it only weakens blue state strongholds as you expect other voters to do the work for you.
Can’t read, or unfamiliar with how US elections work?
Because I don’t live in a swing state my lack of voting for Biden does not support Trump
So my vote is for no genocide but my state will force it to become some genocide through the EC
If you want to pretend like a Californian not voting Biden is somehow giving the election to Trump: that’s a you problem and I find it hilarious
But Republicans love this messaging
And? Maybe the Dems shouldn’t put forth garbage options then. don’t blame voters for the DNCs inability to do basic shit to win elections.
Found one
Y’all reuse the same tactics too: when accused of something, copy/paste it but change a couple of words around. EPIC WIN!!
It’s boring, do something different.
Exact same arguments are made to minimise right wing extremists, “has to be a left wing false flag”.
Both are possible. The enemy is extremism, regardless of leaning.
You can’t really divide right wingers. They fall in line, because they are close minded. The left’s tent is much bigger and thus much easier to divide.
And the left doesn’t hate itself.
The right is so desperate to be upset that they will believe anything except reality.
Unfortunately it’s not only the right. A lot of people from all walks of life are jumping on misleading articles because they aling with their views and don’t bother fact checking them. You see it plenty on Lemmy.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
This is a perfect example of truthful mainstream propaganda.
I have no doubt all of the facts in this piece are correct, but they’re also aligned in such a way to suggest to the reader that the real root of the problem is that commoners are allowed to have anonymous social media accounts not tied to a real name or some government ID program.
It also doesn’t distinguish between anonymous and pseudonemous, which is important.
This.
The real way to deal with this issue is immedate fact checking of information.
The article, however, suggests that the way to deal with the issue is forcing people to use their real identities on line, which will only serve to silence speech. How many of these right wing psychopaths will happily threaten to murder you if you argue they’re wrong?
The answer to bad speech is more speech, not suppression.
Fact checking the firehose of falsehoods? That’s never going to work.
We should teach how to be critical of information.
I keep running into people who say moderation is impossible at scale.
It does not make surface level sense to me. But it’s true. Ban evasion is too easy. With no repercussions behavior is not socially enforced.
If you think through it, and do want moderation and bans to work, it always comes back to having to have an authoritative index of all users. And that gets dystopian almost instantly. It always needs some organization or government to tell the platform that a user is who they say they are.
What about networks of trust instead of a single index?
That sounds interesting. I’d be curious to learn if:
- It’s been proven to scale to millions of users.
- If there are usually strong repercussions for lying.
You and I both! Unfortunately I am familiar with the concept but unfamiliar with any specific details.
Moderation at scale, like democracy, only works with an educated user base. When your user base is too dumb to help self-police, shit gets very difficult.
So people don’t deserve, or can’t be trusted enough, to be allowed the right to have anonymous online accounts? Everything needs be tied to a centralized/government ID system because the average person is too stupid?
Not what I said. But you are proving my point.
Not what I said. But you are proving my point.
The fact that you can’t see the irony in your own response, is more evidence for your point than anything else.
Regardless, I don’t think that should deprive you of the right to anonymity.
Cool story bro. Still not what I said.
There is not some conspiracy here where media companies are colluding with God knows who to covertly and subtly spread the idea that anonymity online is bad.
It’s more likely that you don’t want that to be true, but recognize that at least on some level it is true, and this is how you’re grappling with that cognitive dissonance.
This doesn’t show there is some conspiracy, it shows that there could be one. Maybe I should not be so forceful in my dissent, and I should say there is a potential the conspiracy is happening, but neither you nor the other poster has actually offered up any evidence of such a conspiracy. A conspiracy is always just a good way to dismiss things we don’t want to admit are true or might be true.
You keep saying conspiracy because it’s easy to discount that label, a label that I never used.
I wasn’t describing a plot by some old men in a smoke filled room, I was pointing out an example of propaganda used to manufacture consent.
Unfortunately, the culprit is the system, working as designed. That’s an exponentially more dangerous villain then any cabal could ever be.
You keep saying conspiracy because it’s easy to discount that label, a label that I never used.
Because even without outright saying, it’s clearly implied. And, besides, you’ve still provided zero evidence to support the assertion. You are doing what you are accusing me of doing: using a label to assert (or in my case, dismiss) something without evidence.
This. This right here, people, is why the community rules exist and why I’m happy to see them consistently enforced.
AnonymousForeignFTFY
Chinese, North Korean, and Russian shills.
Specified for you.
Oh, cool, a well researched article on right-wing disinformation campaigns. Can’t wait to watch the Lemmy liberals accuse leftists of being a part of this without any evidence.
Can’t wait for the liberals in power to try and expand the surveillance state using this as a pretext.
Yeah, I did notice this article had a weirdly anti-anonymity undertone, as though corporate algorithms designed push conflict and sensationalism weren’t the driving force of disinformation.
I’m really happy with all the fucking porn bans and want more, yes please daddy, go through everything I"m doing and punish me for everytime I didn’t kiss the America Flag
Um, aktuly, social credit score is from China, sweetie. Liberals are for liberty, it’s right there in the name
Can’t wait for these supposed “leftists” who-are-totally-not-righties-hiding-behind-anonymity to take for granted literally all the historical and modern day progress that came through none other than — you guessed it — the liberal legislature and liberal Justices.
From child labor laws to the civil rights act to same sex marriage — thank a liberal.
(Disclaimer: I’m further left than liberal on the political spectrum)
Lmao, yeah, thank the well known liberals and liberals only, like MLK and Malcolm X, for civil rights they were forced to acknowledge or face race riots.
Definitely wasn’t the liberal establishment that assassinated them either. And liberal is the opposite of conservative btw 🤣
Don’t bother, I just wasted a full day arguing with this guy on exactly this topic, and he just kept doubling down. I even quoted the portion of Letter from a Birmingham Jail about white moderates and his response was, “But then white moderates passed the Civil Rights Act a year later! How curious!” There is no amount of information that will convince him that moderate Liberals weren’t responsible for the victories of the Civil Right movement.
Edit: See what I mean? Guys desperate for my attention 2 days later.
Always makes me wonder who these chuckleheads think were doing it before.
Exactly. Every time Liberals yield to pressure from leftists, these chuds want to credit the Liberals.
This confidently-incorrect fellow, who:
- Increasingly deflected,
- resorted to more personal attacks and,
- ultimately ran away from the discussion after I started citing primary sourced quotes like:
the biggest headaches for Democratic leader Mike Mansfield often came not from Republicans but from the conservative bloc of his own party caucus
and:
Dominating the GOP caucus, many conservatives believed the civil rights bill represented an unprecedented intrusion by the state into the daily lives of Americans.
and:
You had a battle with the conservatives on the committee, the southern Democrats, conservative Republicans, but you had just as tough a battle with the liberals. Their position was the old story of the half loaf or three-quarters of a loaf, and [now they were saying] “we’ll settle for nothing less [than the whole loaf.]” . . . We shared their views, and we’d love to do it their way.
From https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/civil_rights/cloture_finalpassage.htm and https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/summer/civil-rights-act
For which he could not even respond to let alone refute — Truly believed the 1963 Birmingham letter was some smoking-gun when — checks notes — those same white moderates MLK Jr. was talking about wound up passingthe Civil Rights Act 1 year later.
Yes, you read those quotes correctly: Liberals were pushing to strengthen the Civil Rights Act while conservatives were trying to water it down.
Smh.
Don’t tell him which ideology such surviving activists from John Lewis of the Edmund Pettus Bridge march or Jim Clyburn, both of the civil Rights era joined under.
Edit: See what I mean, guys? Still has nothing substantive to respond with. Truth can hurt sometimes. I’m still floored he tried to claim that conservatives supported the Civil Rights Act more than Liberals lol.
Isn’t it funny that civil rights activists of the time from John Lewis to Clyburn joined the liberal Democrats?
But yes two things can happen simultaneously: there can be activists, and then there can be liberals who actually passed the Civil Rights Act. You know, liberals.
Sure wasn’t confederate conservatives now was it?
Can’t tell if you’re saying Liberals are good or if Same Sex Marriage and Civil Rights are bad… not comfortable either way
I have it on very good authority from several Lemmy libs that I’m a Russian troll.
Well, the types of misinformation will vary but anywhere people gather and have discussions is bound to have some bullshit floating around that gets spread around. It’s a fault of humanity, not of any particular persuasion. But there is a far cry from rumors about how to find the Triforce in Ocarina of Time to shit like “vaccines cause autism” and such.
Yeah, but there’s a tendency online in liberal circles to think that any criticism from the left is right-wing or foreign interference. I’ve seen a lot of people in the political groups here claim that the leftists they’re arguing with are part of hostile disinformation campaigns, which is just silly; online propagandists make Facebook Groups and Pages to create memes and articles, and hundreds of sock-puppet accounts to disseminate them. They don’t waste hours writing dozens of replies to a single account on a small, niche website.
They don’t waste hours writing dozens of replies to a single account on a small, niche website.
Exactly. I’m not spreading propaganda. I’m just an idiot.
Part of the problem is there’s lots of gullible people who repeat whatever nonsense makes them feel righteous. It’s usually not clear if you’re talking to a dumbass who fell for right-wing or Russian imperialist talking points, or an actual neonazi pretending to be a misguided leftist for trolling purposes, or an actual Russian imperialist pretending to be a misguided leftist for trolling purposes. I think you’re right though that Lemmy is not a likely target for any kind of organized propaganda campaign because it’s relatively tiny and would be a waste of time for those sorts of groups.
In the brave new world of LLMs, it no longer takes hours to write comments and replies all day in favour of some political or commercial view. The whole process can be automated! Cool, right?
Well, I’ve never used an LLM to argue with strangers online, but I would imagine that it would take a lot of effort to keep getting coherent responses to every comment. But even if it is fast and easy, are you really suggesting that right-wing or foreign trolls are concentrating on individual arguments on niche communities? I’ve heard of fake news outlets, astroturfed hashtags, propaganda memes, reply spam, and other broad influence campaigns, but I’ve never heard of troll farms being used for individual arguments, especially on small websites. It seems like, even did take minimal effort, it would also have minimal influence. Do you have any evidence this is happening?
Well, I’ve seen clear examples of AIs responding to comments on hot-button topics on reddit. But I guess that isn’t a small website. In any case, the only point I was really trying to make is that widespread social manipulation is becoming easier. If someone decides they want to influence a discussion somewhere, they can do that without a great deal of effort. The comments don’t have to be detailed or coherent. Simply being on-topic and persistent is enough, raising vaguely relevant talking-points whenever a response is expected.
Has anyone considered that these “anonymous” or “foreign” operators are just sophisticated bots?
Many of them probably are, but they are bots designed to spread that information…
And they’re doing it because they think it is funny
I truly am curious on why you think someone is spreading this amount of misinformation as a joke. Usually I see explanations such as:
- Russia and China are perpetrators of most of the misinformation
- Conservatives spreading misinformation (that they do believe) in order to make their conclusions more plausible (see Charlie Kirk)
I know trolls exist but could they really be this influential? I would hope not.
It’s been a staple rhetorical strategy for fascists to both be entirely serious and “totally joking” with the same exact statements. It allows them to consistently push the boundaries of acceptable prejudice while always having a fall-back. “You took that seriously!?!?”.
Like the recent Rudy Guiliani’s joke about New York (a place he ran) being a communist state. That seems to add up.
Removed by mod
“Users”
2001 called and asked for its headline back.
It makes sense. What’s the first thing you’re going to do when you arrive in a foreign country, when you have no money, don’t speak the language, don’t know what you’re going to do tomorrow, have been through hell after literally walking thousands of kilometres?
Register for voting in the local presidential election of course! You still have your napkin that your communist contact gave you with a quick scribble: “Beeden, good; Troomp, no good”.
“People acting like people in spaces where people gather. More on this breaking story at 11.”
But illegally, though
X did not respond to a request for comment, which was met with an automated reply.
I’m pretty sure that automated reply was just 💩, since that’s what he does with all of his other companies.
