You must log in or register to comment.

ObjectReport t1_itdqlop wrote

Of course they do. TikTok is cancer and Facebook is hot garbage.


Trinitur199 t1_ith6wt8 wrote

Your TikTok might be cancer because you’re cancer or like it. My TikTok FYP is cooking and funny, stupid skits, and news/video game news. I feel like TikTok is a reflection on your online activities.

If it’s all political misinformation, you probably spend your time arguing. If it’s Tatas n booty, you a horny mf. I’ll say that TikTok rn feels like the most neutral platform. You won’t see what you don’t have an interest in. Plus their comment section has limited characters so if your comment is toxic, it’ll come off toxic. If ya got a point to make, gotta be concise in making it.


[deleted] t1_ite68n8 wrote



ObjectReport t1_ite8n4k wrote

Anyone defending a chinese spyware app sounds grossly out of touch.


[deleted] t1_itefc5y wrote

Reddit is just as much as a scraper 😂 all the content you see on Reddit comes off tiktok. Imagine hating an app that has viable communities on it bc of borders


420hansolo t1_itg3brd wrote

If your reddit content all comes from TikTok you're definitely doing something wrong. I see a video here and there with their watermark but it's like 1% and not all of it


CoolmanExpress t1_itehz5r wrote

Lmao yeah he says it like tencent doesn’t own like 20% of Reddit. I’m not saying China good but it’s just a bullshit reason to feel cool for hating on something popular. Like China has any suuuper important information about you cause you’re so important😭


Sorry_I_Am_Stoned t1_itdsitz wrote

In other news the sky is blue.


ZippyTheWonderSnail t1_itf5scv wrote

"These ads contained falsehoods such as telling voters they needed to be vaccinated to vote in person or that voters would need to vote twice so that their votes would count."

I gotta be honest. At this point, these aren't as far fetch as it sounds.


InfoSponge95 t1_itdrdya wrote

Shouldn’t this experiment be followed by lawsuits?


nicuramar t1_iti6ebr wrote

If some relevant law or principle is broken, maybe. Is it?


Charming_Wulf t1_itihtrm wrote

Honestly, I don't think it violates any US law. The US Govt likes the myth of 'self regulated industries'.

Congress or the relevant Agency will threaten or do an investigation when things get two steps past obviously bad. Said industry will swear up and down they will improve amongst themselves. Policies will be formulated and announced. Elected officials will pat themselves on the back for causing 'change'.

After X amount of time or Y change in the industry, things will reach another critical point. Second time around either we repeat the investigation/promises or legislation actually occurs at the federal level.


catchingonfire t1_itdqzbw wrote

Hey how else are they gonna fund the Metaverse


DonkeyKongsVet t1_itdu04n wrote

Tell us something we don’t know. Seriously these groups or people go invest time to say the obvious. Like no kidding my local tv station airs misinformation too. If they can well social media sure will too


Individual_Jelly3762 t1_itdv0lh wrote

Most of the oligarchy isn't on the side of the people? Color me shocked.


Thunderbutt77 t1_iteuoza wrote

The is no such thing as misinformation. There is the truth, and there are lies.

Misinformation and disinformation are bullshit words. If lies are being spread, say it.


gucci_gelms t1_ithbqoy wrote

I’ve never agreed with a Reddit comment as much as this one🙏 if the people with all the money/power run the platforms then they’ll push whatever narrative is best for them or their company


Thunderbutt77 t1_itlk32v wrote

Thank you.

These are propaganda words and anyone with a lick of sense can see right through them. They can't be explained or defended.


nicuramar t1_iti6lvl wrote

Are you against nuance in language? Because, I think it serves us quite well, in general.


Thunderbutt77 t1_itj6fqq wrote

Yes, when it involves science or politics. I prefer facts.


Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_iti7zz0 wrote

But misinformation and disinformation are, by definition, two different things.

Edit: I also wouldn't call accurate information "the truth", considering that word is used by many people pushing garbage narratives. It's just information. No narrative attached.


Thunderbutt77 t1_itj6rys wrote

Okay, and both are bullshit.

I honestly have no response to someone that says they wouldn’t call accurate information the truth.


Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_itjqc27 wrote

Both are words to describe two different concepts. Do you understand how words work?


Thunderbutt77 t1_itkrqvv wrote

I do. Show me an example of mis or disinformation that I can’t call a lie. I’ll show you how those words work.


Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_itl3jq4 wrote

Actually, disinformation would be what you would call a "lie". It is intentionally incorrect or misleading inormation meant to do harm. Malice behind it.

Misinformation is inaccurate information formed through some other means. By error of some kind, or misunderstanding. It's disinformation without the malicious intent. Otherwise, not a "lie". Lies are told when the correct information is known and withheld.


Thunderbutt77 t1_itlcjr1 wrote

  1. It isn't what "I call" a lie. It is a lie. Let's try not to make this personal.
  2. Can you provide an example? I believe I will be able to respond with either "That is the truth" or "That is a lie".

I'll use your exact words in a different order:

Actually, disinformation is what you would call a "lie". Misinformation is inaccurate information formed through some other
means. By error of some kind, or misunderstanding. It's disinformation
without the malicious intent. Otherwise, not

Disinformation is a lie.

Misinformation is disinformation without the malicious intent.

Misinformation is a lie.


Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_itlevyo wrote

I see you're completely incapable of nuance, and fully subscribe to the idea of black and white thinking.

Carry on


Thunderbutt77 t1_itlj0e1 wrote

I see that you are unable to provide one single example of "misinformation" that I can't call a lie.

Facts do not require nuance.

This is what happens every single time I have this conversation.

Thank you for helping me prove my point.


Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_itlmn9y wrote

I never said facts required nuance. Language is enhanced with nuance.

And no, I don't have time to look up examples of misinformation. I could look up the definition for you, if you'd like. You can still call them "lies", but other people use different terms. It's a made up word with it's own definition just like literally every other word in the dictionary.


Thunderbutt77 t1_itm17uq wrote

If you could find an example that proved your point you would find time. The reason you don't have time is because it is impossible.

I'll help using the specific examples in this article:

"These ads contained falsehoods such as telling voters they needed to be vaccinated to vote in person" Not mis or disinformation, this is a lie.

"that voters would need to vote twice so that their votes would count" Not mis or disinformation, this is a lie.

Misinformation and Disinformation are used to suppress speech. That is it. There is nuance in language, I agree. There is no nuance to the truth.


Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_itn73si wrote

>The reason you don't have time is because it is impossible.

The reason I don't have time is because I have a job.

>Misinformation and Disinformation are used to suppress speech.

In what way? I don't see how calling these things "lies" would suppress speech less.


Thunderbutt77 t1_itrsqn2 wrote

Misinformation is used in place of lies because it muddles the definition of a lie and causes a grey area. There is no grey area when it comes to the truth or a lie.

Misinformation is used to suppress speech in this manner. I'm only using this example because it is recent, big, and accurate.

"If you get vaccinated, you can't spread the virus" This was presented as fact, while in reality it was a lie. Anything questioning this lie was classified as "misinformation" and was removed from message boards, social media, etc. We weren't even allowed to ask the question. This suppressed speech.

"If you get vaccinated, you can still spread the virus" - this fact was called misinformation. No one ever said "That is a lie". Why, because it isn't a lie and calling it a lie would come back and bite you on the ass. You can talk your way out of "misinformation" - once you call someone a liar you have liability.

Misinformation... not a lie, but we don't want you talking about it so we're not going to let you. I can't really prove you wrong so I'm just going to shut it down.

Lie... say whatever you want. I'll prove you a liar and show the world.


Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_itrvpvo wrote

>"If you get vaccinated, you can't spread the virus" This was presented as fact, while in reality it was a lie.

At the time this was said, it was correct to the best of everyone's knowledge. Later it was updated when more data came in about the efficacy of the vaccines.

The flip happened with your second example, of course.

Knowledge is not some static, unchanging thing. If we treat it as such, as you're treating it, no public official or private entity would ever make a hard statement in fear that it may be proved wrong and spun as a lie.

No wonder politicians are so damn wishy washy, because a portion of the population inevitably calls them liars if they turn out to be wrong about something.


Thunderbutt77 t1_its472m wrote

Oh my! How dare us call politicians liars when they lie! How about they have an idea of what they are talking about before presenting something as fact? Or, there is the option of saying "We aren't sure, but we're hoping that...". Nah, let's present it as fact and shut down any conversation.

Knowledge and Facts are not the same thing. Did I reference knowledge anywhere? I refer to FACTS. Facts are static, unchanging things. If they weren't they wouldn't be called Facts.

Back on point... Misinformation and Disinformation are bullshit words only used to suppress speech. You asked how, I just showed you how.

You're dug in and that's okay with me. I've proven my point over and over. I've answered your questions with yes and no and given examples.

There isn't one single example of actual mis(or dis)information that I can't call a lie.


Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_itt363w wrote

>Knowledge and Facts are not the same thing. Did I reference knowledge anywhere?

You referenced the vaccines and whether someone vaccinated could pass the virus along or not. At one time it was believed the person couldn't. Early clinical trials showed this.

Over time it was shown that, actually, vaccinated people can pass along the virus.

Initially what was KNOWN turned out to be different from what is now KNOWN. Knowledge. Facts are learned, and added to our knowledge over time as new data/information is received.

We can't have 100% certainty in everything at all times.


Thunderbutt77 t1_itv2f8y wrote

If something is KNOWN then it doesn't change. Otherwise it isn't KNOWN, it is assumed.

There is a thing (used to be anyway) called Scientific Theory. Science, not The Science, just regular old Science. It involves three steps: Testable, Replicable, Stable. What you don't see there is "At one time it was believed...".

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with these two bullshit words being used to suppress speech.

Over on r/News, this is the first comment on a post (by a very objective mod /s):

"Antivaxxers are not welcome in r/news.
If you are spouting misinformation about COVID-19, vaccines, or even
just general antivax talking points, you will be permanently banned.
Consider this your warning."

Do you know why that says "If you are spouting misinformation" rather than "If you are spouting lies"? It is because they can call whatever they want misinformation without having to prove anything.

If it said "Lies", then a banned user would be able to say "Please show me how I'm lying". This requires proof.

Since it says "Misinformation", a banned used must say "Please show me how I'm wrong" and Mod can say "I'M NOT DOING THIS WITH YOU FASCIST" and move on. No proof required. Your thoughts are bad and we will not let you share them.

That's why you are unable to find any example of misinformation to which I can't respond with "That is a lie".

Misinformation and Disinformation are words only used to suppress speech.


Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_itvixz5 wrote

>It involves three steps: Testable, Replicable, Stable. What you don't see there is "At one time it was believed...".

I'm well aware of the scientific method. Dozens of science courses taken during college. Apparently you aren't, considering our understanding of literally everything has been constantly refined over the centuries since it was conceived.

Hypotheses are formed, tested profusely, and occasionally found to be incorrect or improved on in the future. Outside of math there is very little we still believe to be true today that was believed even decades ago, let alone centuries.

What do you figure, we should put an asterisk on every statement ever made?

"*May be proved incorrect in the future, and some dumbfuck on reddit might call it a lie"


Thunderbutt77 t1_itvn6mf wrote

Dumbfuck, huh? I'm absolutely kicking your ass on an intellectual level. You've got NOTHING for me.

You aren't able to provide a single example to support your stance. Not one. As a matter of fact, you haven't even addressed a single point I've made. You just make excuse after excuse.

"Yeah, but at that time, to the best of our knowledge, blah blah"

I have dismantled your argument over and over and over. You're so beaten on the topic of mis and disinformation that you've moved on now.

And no, we don't need an asterisk on every statement ever made. I understand you are feeling embarrassed and are now lashing out and calling names but this is just a dumb thing to say even when you are mad. If, however, something is presented as a medical fact and there is even an infinitesimal chance that it is wrong, yeah, I think it should include a disclaimer. Every FDA approved medicine has a ton of them.


Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_itvse8a wrote

Hmm, an example. How about Newton's laws? Those are mostly correct, until they aren't. Was Newton lying when he came up with his theories?

How about quantum mechanics? That changed our thinking on just how small elements of matter are, and the lack of predictability of the universe.

More recently, how about climate science? Early on we thought the ice caps were going to be melted by now. Turns out they were off by a number of decades. Even now there are huge error bars on the predicted sea level rise by 2100, and it changes every year.

>If, however, something is presented as a medical fact and there is even an infinitesimal chance that it is wrong, yeah, I think it should include a disclaimer. Every FDA approved medicine has a ton of them.

This I agree with. But the point I was trying to make is that would include everything. Why are there disclaimers for every FDA approved medicine? Because we never know for sure. Clinical studies are great but they never tell the whole story.

Maybe there should've been a disclaimer of some kind on the statement that vaccinated people can't spread the virus. But from my perspective, that asterisk is always there.


Thunderbutt77 t1_itwhoi0 wrote

I seriously don't even know where you are going with this. You are trying so hard to be right about something. I don't wish to discuss vaccines and science with you. We were discussing misinformation; the example I used to show how the words misinformation and disinformation are used to suppress speech just happened to be about the vaccines. Stay on topic.

Yes, in the history of the world there have been scientific discoveries that have changed scientific definitions. You are correct! Usually they don't happen in the course of 6 months and usually they don't involve the government forcing the population to take a drug, but in the history of science it has happened. Isn't it cool how I can directly address your statement?

Now, back to the topic that you so greatly want to avoid. I want an example on THIS:

Misinformation and Disinformation are bullshit words used only to suppress speech.

There is no example of actual misinformation that I can't call a lie.


Thunderbutt77 t1_iu56vgj wrote

This is how you silence people. Facts and logic.

No need to ban anyone when you can prove you are right.

This was a good exchange.


redditdeigy t1_itduckh wrote

As platforms struggle for ad revenues, their standards drop. This is true of any business.


Caraes_Naur t1_itdvub0 wrote

Of course they do.

Social media only cares how information drives engagement, which leads to ad views, and ultimately increased revenue. They don't care how the information affects users or society as a whole.


deephurting66 t1_itef1aa wrote

Are they spoon fed sheep that can't think for themselves? People have minds and are capable of independent thinking, WE DONT NEED THOUGHT POLICE!


Poopy-Drew t1_itfu9wm wrote

The problem is that is you can find tons of videos, articles,discussions, usually including a phD or professor giving support of what ever angle you are looking to support. So down the rabbit hole they go, so to their knowledge, they are the most informed in the room about conspiracy 6a or whatever and then the truth gets called a cover up or that’s what they want you to think, but due the fucked nature of giant companies, it’s not that far fetched you could totally see lots of soulless corporations doing exactly that, and just like that it spreads and spreads until committing treason seems justifiable, cuz the great leader loses like a crybaby bitch and needed our help


deephurting66 t1_itfxdk2 wrote

The annoying cheeto rumble and the summer of love riots, 2 sides of the same coin. Price of free speech, both were wrong but it is better than censorship in all its forms. Who decides what "truth" is? For decades it was the MSM that was the bullhorn now its a new landscape and information is finally free.


Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_iti8rxd wrote

"and information is finally free"

Ya, and that's been going just swimmingly. From pseudoscience, to misinformation, to conspiracy-pushing groups such as Q-Anon, everyone's opinion has an equal platform. Yay.


deephurting66 t1_itif30j wrote

Yes it has, people have THE CHOICE to believe or disbelieve the foil hats. Its all about independent thought, don't believe them and follow mainstream, good on you, follow Q and company down to flat earth land run by illiminati, good on you as well. Shit if you want to believe we live on a giant turtle swimming in space while worshipping a chainsaw named Fred good on you too. Why try and stop ideas, nobody should decide what is right or wrong except the person hearing it.


Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_itlvovf wrote

>Why try and stop ideas

The only reason I will give is that certain ideas are harmful to society, simple as that. Whether that is justification for censorship or not, well, that's up for debate.


Optical_inversion t1_itest1v wrote

“Capable of independent thinking.” Yeah, ima need a citation on that one chief.


Due-Resident-4588 t1_iteewg0 wrote

I’m sure misinformation against both Republicans and Democrats is out there but these companies don’t care.


leemax2022 t1_itfji61 wrote

meh. i dont use either trashy platform


[deleted] t1_itfpxne wrote

Good thing Reddit is so pure and innocent.


Incubus_Priest t1_itdv3ti wrote

money is money. they take adds from the CCP and other dictatorships no issue, twitter has stated it literaly cant function anymore without CCP funding.


mevrowka t1_itdxiz3 wrote

No shock there.


KidKarez t1_itei9fo wrote

I'm sure they approve whatever ads cut them a check lol


chriscamerongames t1_itesb1u wrote

absolute lack of context - all ad platforms are different, and automated. Without seeing the ads themselves, we don’t know the actual intent of the people testing the ads, or what keywords etc were used to dodge the systems, or intentionally flag them.

I loathe political ads in general, but running ads to prove a point without a step by step process on the how doesn’t really add up


miken322 t1_itf3vo7 wrote

Yea, because it isn’t really about the content, it’s about the profit margin.


abtei t1_itfguwr wrote

not sure if approve is the correct word, it kinda implys someone checked beforehand if they're ok.

its more like wave em through. gimme the money.


Swordfish-Calm t1_itfu423 wrote

If it weren’t for election misinformation, there would be no election information.


Sorry-Business-1152 t1_itgdjep wrote

TikTok is Chinese owned and Facebook is infested with Russian bots so……..duh


reconRyan t1_itgh1z6 wrote

Zuckerberg admitted the FBI were involved w their decision to suppress the hunter Biden laptop story. They knew the swing states would flip for Trump and panicked.


oliveorvil t1_ite05in wrote

Was the “experiment” just someone logging into each platform?


loganp8000 t1_ite0cnt wrote

Money is money regardless of facts or fiction


unresolved_m t1_itekyew wrote

Somehow I see more far-right content suggestions from YT these days - usually that happens anyway around elections

Things like ads for Epoch Times, incel channels etc etc etc


Sydardta t1_itfl21g wrote

Tiktok and Facebook have owners that support right-wing nutjob bullshit.


capnwinky t1_itfaia1 wrote

And YouTube, judging by the last week of insane shit I’ve seen that qualified as an ad.


xXRoboMurphyxX t1_itequcx wrote

If both sides are doing misinformation, aren't the ship sailing straight as it ever has and we are just being lied to like always /$


[deleted] t1_itdn42k wrote



Kirahei t1_itdqcji wrote

In the article it states that they were outright lies, I.e. telling people they had to be vaccinated to vote or giving the wrong dates out.


AintAintAWord t1_itdzq6x wrote

Reddit users not reading the article before commenting stay dunking on themselves.


crtjer t1_itdqgfd wrote

Shit was happened well before the infamous Cambridge analytica scandal. We used to be able to push ads for pretty much anything as long as the money was there. Stop kidding yourself, you literally have no idea.