RetroFedLeo Dal Pozzo, leodalpozzo@infosec.pub
Instance: infosec.pub
Joined: 1 month ago
Posts: 0
Comments: 51
Posts and Comments by Leo Dal Pozzo, leodalpozzo@infosec.pub
Posts by Leo Dal Pozzo, leodalpozzo@infosec.pub
Comments by Leo Dal Pozzo, leodalpozzo@infosec.pub
EuropeI don’t know if that’s true
Please inform yourself about it then, because that would change the entire discussion. This is an entire field of study, it’s not hidden stuff.
I agree they shouldn’t have a platform and visibility. Definitely shouldn’t be normalised. Shaming them and isolating them is HOW their ideas grew so much. The key is to invalidate their points with arguments, even if they don’t listen, it’s important they are out there and visible to other potential viewers. If you cannot do that because you are isolated from the fascist/flat earthers or whatever, their bubble will grow constantly because they talk to the belly of the people, and these folks will look for the opinions their belly tells them their are right. This is how we got wehere we are now. People saw something they could relate to when they heard these extremists complain about immigrants, corrupted system, secret plots to rule the world. Without access to a counter argument (becuase of the isolation) the spiral started to go deeper and deeper, until full extremization. We have seen something similar with covid.
For example i think banning Hitler’s Mein Kampf, like they do in Germany, is a mistake. The only copies in circulations will be from people that probably simpatize with him and there will be little or no control over the content, which could be altered. This is very dangerous. If the book is freely available there could be laws that force to have notes on the book, which explain why Hitler was a bullshitter and out of his mind. People will be in contact with this content if they look for that book for any reason, it’s not a small thing. They will still find the “altered” copies, but they will be much less attractive (not fascinating because forbidden and easy to find) then will be much easier to see the alteration and to counter it. I hope my point is clearer now
I agree with you. When i say demonising i mean from the point of view of maga folks. The democrats wanted to show how shitty and corrupt he is, they ended up making him a working class hero that is fighting the power and then president for the second time. Trump won thanks to inhability of the democrats and the american public at large to understand that times have changed. Trump understood it and made the “persecution” his winning horse. They manage to transform his mugshot in a huge political win ffs.
I’m not suggesting to let anybody say what they want and offering them a platform. I’m saying that if you don’t want these people in power, like you didn’t want trump in power or fascists in the streets, the key is not to do the easiest thing that comes to mind, but to listen to what people that study other people say, and they all say the same thing: the more you isolate shitty people, the more and more shitty they will become, because they will create their own closed community, which history tells us will only grow. What happened when the flat earthers became mainstream and people started to ban them everywhere and threat them like idiot? Their numbers decuplicated and the closeted flat earthers suddenly were public, to the point that athletes, politicians and other public figures came out as flat earthers. The point was to isolate them, they ended up way more and widespread than before.
Yes, because current efforts seem to be focused in only trying to isolate the people we don’t like. During pre-internet time might have relatively worked, now it’s clear it doesn’t and saying “it’s the best option we have” is just false. It’s the easier option that people (but not sociologist or social psichologist) keep adopting because it’s very easy, fits with our desire to not have shitheads around us and because people assumed that’s how it worked so far.
Stop ignoring the reality and accept the fact that despite attempts to isolate them, the right is getting stronger everywhere. It’s time to change approach or to start to get used to the new reality. Don’t trust me, go beyond social media and go check what experts of hate and extremism say, not the politician we like this year.
I’d love to hear the thoughts of the people that downvoted. If they disagree with what i said, or if stimply they don’t like it and want it to disappear. Unironically, the (very expected) reactions to my comment are proving my point.
Comments on social media make harder to think it’s just a couple dozen rich guys. People forgot or have no idea what war is beside propaganda movies and the media push for war every day. I read every day articles that say how this or the other guy are absolutely sure that Russia is getting stronger and will attack a NATO country any moment. The drones appearing all over Europe are just a warning (even if hey seem to be all Ukranian drones). I also read at the same time that Russia is so weakened by the west that will capitulate any time. In war times you can say a thing and it’s opposite and if you point it out you are for sure a friend of this dictator or that other one. People are so used to thinking in black and white that having an opinion became the same as unconditionally supporting a sport team.
Exactly, but seems that we have been proven multiple times that banning/shunning/shaming only achieves the opposite.
True, but not because they didn’t try, which is my point. The attempt was to make him so much of a monster and demonise him that nobody would have voted him. The point was to isolate him and they achived the opposite, as you correctly said.
I disagree. Trump got elected (twice) with >30 felonies and after having said all sort of things that only few years ago would have made him completely uncandidable. Deplatforminng doesn’t have the impact that it used to have and only make the person look like “they are going against the strong powers”, that’s why the afd in germany keeps getting stronger despite the multiple bans, Trump in the US, the neo-fascists movements in the uk, the neofascists in Italy. What has calling these people “fascists” and isolating them has achieved? Only raising their consent. Also, television and radio are not so meaningful anymore as they used to be, internet has made them completely obsolete and most people take their info from the latter. It’s counterintuitive, but the political history of the last 10 years has proven this multiple times. It’s very useful to look into how cult works and what’s the best way to unlock them. Isolating the people in the cult is the worst move one can make.
I think most people haven’t realised that the world is different from 20 years ago, not even with Trump being Trump.
Banning a party will not magically make the support they have disappear. When people with fascist views get isolated, we only make them close more and more in their own bubble, which will just create more extremism. It’s the same with people that make fun of flat earthers. You are not going to change their mind, you are just sending them deeper into their delusions. People still don’t get that banning everything we don’t like is not a long term solution, but makes the problem worse (war on drugs, forbidding prostitution, etc)
We really are in the age of functional analphabetism. Extrapolate!
Beside yours being a wrong premise, you are still wrong: the nazis literally started the war the way you described it. They sent German infiltrators dressed as polish soldiers to attack a radio station. They then claimed Poland attacked first, so they declared war to them and that’s when the invasion started (Gleiwitz incident). Maybe before calling people dishonest fools you should have a minimal idea of what you are talking about.
Yeah right, calling your points childish was such a terrible offense in an adult conversation that you are forced to stop the conversation. I’m sure that’s the reason ;)
Why? Because i criticise Ukraine i am necessarely on Russia’s side? I literally said in the comment before that nothing excuses Russia from attacking civilian structures, as much as i think Russia’s governemnt is a criminal for invading Ukraine and causing death and destruction. Is after saying this my opinion still going to be discarded because comes by a putinist in your mind?
I understand i sound harsh, but i think it’s very important ot be clear here: your line of thinking is exactly what allowed the holocaust and other war crimes and crimes agaisnt humanity to happen. if you really think nazis didn’t evaluate their morality in doing what they did, i strongly suggest you to take a deeper look at conflicts and not banalise them as “the good guys with their beautiful morality” “and the bad guys which clearly are the bad guys because they don’t haver any morality”. This is not how conflicts, the world or human beings work. Conflicts have always a cause and who starts them always thinks they are doing for a just cause.
I do agree absolutely there is no black and white, but i’m the one who you accused of being a “russian apologist” becuase i criticise Ukraine’s behaviour in this war. Isn’t that a black and white kind of thinking? It’s important to not circumstanciate principles, but adopt them widely. Otherwise they are just a gimmick to push somebody’s point.
We are not discussing about responding in a “meaningful way”, here we are talking about allowing attacks against civilian and civilian infrastructure as a response. Your line of thinking could be used the same way by Al-Qaida ("The americans killed us for decades and nobody cared, so we had to attack them with terrorism because it’s the only efficient way to hit them"), ISIS/Daesh ("Our people have been subject of a western crusade, we answer back with our own"), Hamas and any other reprehensible group that uses terrorism as a form of attack because they feel they have no other way to hit their enemy. Do you see how dangerous is that way of thinking and in what terrible spiral sends people?
It’s really worrying that people cna write stuff like that and not realising there is something wring with it. Literally justifying crimes against himanity with the moat silly and childish reasoning.
Jesus christ this kind of thought is how genocides happen. You are literally saying if nobody can force me to have a moral, then i’m justified to behave as inhumane as my enemy. This is a line of thinking that a nazi gerarc woukd be proud of. Stay human people, we are getting very close to a world of barbarism.
I’m ok with people dieing. I’m not ok with people being murdered. Doesn’t matter if i like or not the people that kill. And yes this works for Russia too, but attacking civilian infrastructure is a crime as much as it is bombing civilian infrastructure. Seems to me that a lot of people are willing to justify any action taken by Ukraine because it’s in self defense, even if that means committing war crimes. People ask themselves how the holocaust happened and at the same time they are ok justifying any sort of atrocities against their enemies. We are a primitive species that was given lethal tools.
It’s refreshing to hear reasonable takes in a world where people are willing to accept any crime made by the faction they like if they do them against the faction they don’t like.
Hey thanks for reaching out. I had a personal lemmy instance few years ago, but then life changed and i abandoned it. This thing of communities defederating each others for ridiculus reasons it’s really embarassing and annoying, i think i’ll go back to make my own instance because being able to see only part of the conversation is absurd.
I was aware of this :) my point was not to try to convince the person i’m interact with, but to show the people that are reading that there is a good and a bad way to study and analyze conflicts. Hopefully some reader got something out of it. I expect and don’t mind the downvotes.
Thanks for the links and for the suggestions, they are appreciated. I’ll take a look later today. Have a great day and thanks for caring
This comment shows your real colours and how actually shallow you are. You don’t have anything to back up your claims, you say at the same time that the drones are russian jammed and that they are a deliberate attack to test defenses. You don’t realise that a lot of people having a feeling doesn’t transform that feeling on a fact. Especially if that feeling is carefully crafted by a gigantic media machine. Easier for you to call me Tankie, Russia-friendly, even nazi even if the only thing to back this up is that i disagree with your “analysis”. You are just the result of a sick society where people are tought that ther opinion always matters even when based on other people’s opinion only and when confronted can only shut the door and close themselves in their own bubble. That’s ok, i hope you people will not drag us all to doom thanks to your armchair analysis based on a youtube video.
You are using one of the biggest AMERICAN scandal to say that Russia is doing the same. Do you see the issue here?
Yes, that’s exactly my point. the drones that we are being told are just a signal of an impending military attack from Russia, most of the times are just jammed Ukrainians drones
Again you are just parroting a viewpoint that it’s just an opinion and pure speculation. No fact proves that it was a deliberate attack.
NATO countries are providing to Ukraine weapons, ammunitions, intelligence, specialised troops (for the pointing system of some air defence systems), fundings, GPS and target data. Doesn’t seem so crazy for me that they are saying they are fightning NATO. Equipare that to the possibility of Russia actively attacking a NATO country is a choice based on your feelings, not really a fact.
So they wanted to make addicted to their gas and oil so they could declare war to us later and stop that commerce entirely? i don’t see the logic
So Russia has built strong economic ties with the EU so that when Russia would attack the EU (so basically NATO), the EU will stay silent and let them do? This is literally nonsense.
I engaged in this conversation because i assumed an open mindset and an academic approach towards the issue. You ask for sources but the only one you provide is a youtube video and based on the flimsiness of your claims, that’s probably the maximum extent at which you “study” conflicts. Then you end the speech with a pathetic tirade over nazis to show how though you are and obviously hinting at the fact that, at one point you had to say it, i’m pro-russia in your mind. I really try to have a discussion that doesn’t end in a toddler-level conversation or people just choosing a faction like if it was a footbal team, but if this is the level of the conversation i don’t see benefits in continuing it.
Every single country in the world has been doing this since the invention of politics. the US has literally military bases in most countries, but you don’t seem as worried about them despite they are the one who waged infinite wars for the past 70 years.
It’s easier to believe when you look at the history of Russia, their claims (believable or not, their claims is their justifications toward their own people, so they have to stick to those). the fact that attacking an alliance of 30 countries is insane and unsellable to the Russians, that a War with europe will cut completely disrupt commerce and that will be devastating for the Russian economy itself, resulting in making Putin weaker and he definitely doesn’t want that. Some more: Russia has spent billions in resources to build economical ties with Europe, like the north stream. It’s unplausible that at the same time they plotted to attack the very alliance they spent decades building encomic ties with.
Your skeptic tone seems to give for assumed that my sources are unreliable. Fair enough, i just wish you would apply the same skepticism also to the news you like. Anyway:
While there is no doubt that some Russian drones are jammed and fall on NATO or EU countries. There is no proof, only political speculation, about these drones being sent on purpose by Russia to attack. What we know for sure is that, so far, the drones that created real damages were all Ukrainian. You are free to justify this, but changing the facts because more convenient that way is propaganda.
But all the things you listed don’t seem to have anything to do with the progress in the battlefield, but more with the politics that surround them. There are way more diverse interests when it comes to that. It’s not as important as showing Ukraine as the winning part in the war, which is fundamental to keep the public opinion on their side and therefor continue the stream of funds and armaments toward Ukraine.
I don’t know what reporting you “watch” i just hope it’s not some random youtuber, but instead you are using accademical sources or at least their methodology.
Don’t get me wrong. Anyone who studied history and a bit of military history know that propaganda from both sides is core to every single conflict that ever happened in the world. It’s natural and expected that Ukrainian propaganda is pushed ad nauseam to all allies countries in the conflict. This worked very well, because if you dare to doubt it you are immediately called a putinist, so the conversation die there. Look at propaganda posters from WWI and WWII of all sides and you will see a lot of similarities with today’s narrative or even better, look how Napoleon was presented in european propaganda in the 19th century.
Personally, i would really like that people would learn how to inform themselves, and i would like that more voice would be given to accademic experts or people that study war for a living. Instead we hear only politicians and what is convenient to hear: a lot of drones appear across Europe, everyone immediately assume they are Russian and that’s what get pushed in the news for days, but then when the military apparatus (so relatively disconnected from the political goals of the country) of some of the most anti-russian countries, like Latvia and Poland, say that the drones are actually almost entirely Ukranians, that information get posted only on specialised outlets or maximum a couple of lines in a single newspaper to never be mentioned again. Nobody seems also to care that several intelligence agencies of multiple countries (again Poland and Latvia in primis) keep saying that there are no signs of Russian preparing an attack to Europe, but still, this is not the message that we receive by our politicians and news, because it’s not politically convenient. Instead anything that gives the feeling that Russia could attack europe any second get amplified out of proportions. Isn’t the aim more than clear there?
People are not making informed choices and the information they receive is carefully crafted to go in a single direction. As i said this has been normal in every conflict that ever happend. Also the thing of thinlking ours is good propaganda and theirs is bad propaganda is regular stuff during a war. I’m personally very worried because nuclear war is right behind the corner.
You are still presenting a very partial viewpoint, where Ukrainian outles are considered fair and attempting to be transparent while the other sode doesn’t. I’m very interested and study “military things” and i have studied this conflict for about 7 years now, so i hope i can bring a useful viewpoint. If you actually want to study a conflict or conflicts in general, it’s fundamental to be as close as poasible to the sources and unserstand the problem of uncritically accepting the viewpoint coming from one of the two belligerants. Labelling people from an entire instance “putinist” is already a red flag for me. I’ve been called putinist a million time just because i invite people to have a more accademic and historical-based approach to this and other conflicts. My opinion of Putin doesn’t seem to interest to anyone, if i don’t glorify Ukraine and agree with every piece of propaganda they push, i’m definitely with the ebemy.
A great example is the Institute for the study of war, which is the main source for western media about Ukraine. They are a huge propaganda machine that sell themselves as neutral but it’s an absolutely pro-ukraine source. I read their reports almost daily and they tought me a great deal of the power of propaganda in war times. A great example is the recent worldwide celebration for Russia apparently not gaining as much terrain as they used to and even Ukrain gaining some. This is all over the news, but when you go look it up you find out that this reversion on the battlefield happen when the ISW added a new item to their maps: “russian infiltrations”. Now if they see only few soldiers advancing in an area is not considered an advancement, but an infiltration, which doesn’t get reported in the maps (edit: i meant to say in the final calculation of the kilometers lost/gained, not maps). No newspaper seems to be interested in pointing this out to clarify the data they give us, the same way as nobody mention that the sources of the ISW are for the almost totality either the Ukrainian defense ministry or telegram channels affiliated with combating units. None of these sources will give reliable or objective information.
I understand not trusting russian news, i don’t trudt them either, but i found way more interesting to stufy the discrepancies in the sources we are presented as reliable.
My criticism is not about the news outlet itself, even if, as the earlier responder to my comment pointed out, they make bold and unsourced claims, which is bad journalism practice, even if very common nowadays. My point is that every day this sub is bombarded with news about the war coming from ukrainian outlets, which will be of course extremely partial, as they have to be if they want to keep writing under martial law. I never see a russian domain posting news here because they would be rightfully considered unreliable. I’m amazed that instead every single ukrainian website is allowed here even if it’s clear propaganda (euromaidanpress the worst offender) that uses as sources almost exclusively communication from the government or the state apparatus. We are being bombarded with one sided news that come directly from the Ukrainian state. That’s not less propaganda because we are sympathetic with the country that it’s producing it.
I just hoped that at least here there would be more attention, care and quality of the discussion.
Both, but i have a problem with the fact that propaganda is not supposed to be allowed here, but i see daily streams of dubious websites pushing bold and completely unsourced claims. I feel that they are allowed because that’s the propaganda people like. I really hope i would find conversations of higher level around here, but so far it has been quite disappointing
Almost funny, until we remember that thanks to their iperindividualism and right wing mentality we have had constant wars for the last 70 years.
Isn’t in this sub propaganda forbidden or only matters when the propaganda is from Russia? I get bombarded daily and it’s becoming a bit ridiculus, especially because the level is really low. Is this a place for news or for people to push their own favourite propaganda outlet? I would understand if it was from reliable sources, but jeusus anything posted from a .ua domain seems to be allowed no matter what. Feels like being on reddit.
Aren’t the weapon provides bu the US already paid by the EU?
Or don’t do little miningless things that give you the excuse to not do anything about the real problems.