I said “I’ve noticed” which is anecdotal, but others have shared similar experiences with me. That along with the well documented interference campaigns, it’s not a stretch to draw the same conclusion here on Lemmy.
instead of seeing a spook behind every post, just engage (or don’t) with the comment on its merits. to do otherwise is a form of ad hominem, wher you are attacking teh speaker instead of the content of their speech.
I’m advocating for awareness and critical thinking, not paranoia. The New York Times article I shared outlines how influence operations have grown more sophisticated, with bots and handled accounts leveraging LLMs to mimic real engagement while derailing or inflaming discussions. Recognizing these tactics isn’t about dismissing individuals—it’s about understanding patterns of manipulation that have been well-documented. Identifying bad-faith engagement isn’t an ad hominem attack; it’s a necessary part of critical discourse. If you disagree, that’s fine, but ignoring the issue doesn’t make it disappear.
an accusation of bad faith is almost always itself bad faith. you can explain the problems with someone’s claims or reasoning without accusing them of intentionally being dishonest.
without evidence, you are just spreading fud
I said “I’ve noticed” which is anecdotal, but others have shared similar experiences with me. That along with the well documented interference campaigns, it’s not a stretch to draw the same conclusion here on Lemmy.
Did you read the article I shared by chance?
this is just more fud.
I wish I didn’t have to be skeptical, but sadly I do. If you read the article I shared, it outlined how insidious foreign influence campaigns can be.
For example, in 2019, 19 of Facebook’s top 20 pages for American Christians were run by Eastern European troll farms.
That’s just one example of many. We all need to be hyper vigilant.
instead of seeing a spook behind every post, just engage (or don’t) with the comment on its merits. to do otherwise is a form of ad hominem, wher you are attacking teh speaker instead of the content of their speech.
I’m advocating for awareness and critical thinking, not paranoia. The New York Times article I shared outlines how influence operations have grown more sophisticated, with bots and handled accounts leveraging LLMs to mimic real engagement while derailing or inflaming discussions. Recognizing these tactics isn’t about dismissing individuals—it’s about understanding patterns of manipulation that have been well-documented. Identifying bad-faith engagement isn’t an ad hominem attack; it’s a necessary part of critical discourse. If you disagree, that’s fine, but ignoring the issue doesn’t make it disappear.
an accusation of bad faith is almost always itself bad faith. you can explain the problems with someone’s claims or reasoning without accusing them of intentionally being dishonest.