this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
437 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19244 readers
2644 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

China is behind the largest known covert propaganda operation ever identified on Facebook and Instagram, according to a new report by security researchers at Meta.

Meta on Tuesday outed the authors of a four-year long influence campaign dubbed “Spamouflage Dragon,” which first appeared in 2019 to spread propaganda about Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protests. Since then, the campaign has focused on spreading disinformation about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, attacking dissidents and critics abroad, criticizing the United States, and attempting to sow division during the 2022 midterm elections.

For years, researchers have speculated that the voluminous Spamouflage Dragon posts were connected to the Chinese government but have been unable to publicly prove a link until now. The link comes courtesy of overlapping content found in both Meta’s report and charges filed against Chinese intelligence operatives back in spring.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] demlet 1 points 1 year ago (11 children)

I've never understood the resistance to discussing the origins of Covid. It's pretty important for understanding possible future risks. As far as being racist, I don't get that either. We have to be able to criticize other nations regardless of who they are. I have a lot of respect for what China has done over the last few decades, it doesn't mean they might not have screwed up and leaked a deadly disease out of a lab.

The reality is that we'll probably never know for sure what happened because China blocked anyone else from investigating until long after the fact.

[–] Simpsonator 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

The possible origins should be discussed. By experts. What kind of discussion are you looking for? I'm not a bioweapons expert. Are you? What possible conclusion can we come to that actual experts might not have considered?

I just see this idea that everyone's viewpoint is equivalently valid everywhere and it drives me crazy. This is a scientific question. Real experts study this stuff their entire lives. The one guy with a Ph.D. in Microbiology has an opinion that's worth more than a million random idiots with a keyboard and internet. Maybe instead of coming to our own conclusions, we listen.

[–] demlet 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Of course. Again, I just don't understand the weird polarizing effect even bringing it up causes. By your own reasoning there would be almost nothing most of us average people should even talk about. I find that highly questionable as a blanket statement. We can certainly talk about what we think the experts should be considering without making our own conclusions about it.

Edit: Just to clarify, you mentioned bioweapons. I haven't heard anything to support that. I just wanted to be clear. I'm not promoting any extreme theories or indeed any theory.

[–] Simpsonator 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You totally misunderstood what I suggested. Your statement that we can't discuss anything proves it.

There are a myriad of things we can discuss. Politics, religion, whether Kirk or Picard was better. None of these are provably right or wrong. However, if someone was dispensing medical advice or legal advice, I would hope you'd talk to a real expert. This is the same. I'm not qualified to determine what is right in regards to Covid's origin so I listen to the consensus of experts.

[–] demlet 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But can we talk about climate change? Because we sure do. We talk about complicated economics topics, social issues, human biology... I just don't see why the line is drawn at where Covid might have originated.

[–] Simpsonator 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. We can't talk about whether climate change is real. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence proving it's happening. Where do we draw the line in your world? Do you suffer all the fools who don't believe in gravity too? How about geocentrism? Flat earthers?

There's no line at Covid. I'm saying there should be a line at hard sciences and questions that are verifiable. We can discuss whether gravity exists but it's just wasted breath if neither one of us knows all that much about gravity.

[–] demlet 3 points 1 year ago

Fair enough. Climate change was a bad example. Maybe I could have said something like aliens. I'm far from an expert on anything to do with anything related to aliens, but I'm willing to recognize that it's an open question. Similarly, I'm not really saying we should imagine we have the answer with Covid, I just don't think there's anything wrong with recognizing that it's an open question. In one of my first comments in this thread in fact (I have apparently been talking to multiple people and not always realizing they're different...), I stated up front that I doubt we'll ever have an answer. I suppose the point has been belabored quite a bit at this point. I appreciate your insights and that you took the time to share them without getting too... um... Reddity?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)