The thing with news sources and deciding what's trustworthy and what's not is that when you see criticism of Aljazeera (which to be clear is not a great news source about anything other than Palestine) is that they completely neglect to mention that each regional section of Al-Jazeera has different people in charge of it, different contributors, different sources.

By all means, analyze your sources and understand what information you're getting but to say outright that ALL of what AlJazeera reports EVER is wrong is inherently meant to discredit Palestinian journalists in a way that no other journalist who is not Palestinian and NOT directly experiencing the war in Gaza has been discredited. Surprisingly (not really but), a lot of Palestinians in Gaza are employed by AlJazeera because it's difficult for them to find employment elsewhere.

And again, I do not love AlJazeera. I think they do plenty of faulty journalism and reporting and I actively avoid them for most news sources. But RIGHT NOW with everything going on in Gaza, they're probably one of the most trustworthy ones because of their first hand accounts and willingness to publish Palestinian voices, which many, MANY news stations refuse to do. I especially encourage the Arabic version of AlJazeera!

Like Haartz has like... 4 Palestinians on their editorial team max, and they have EVEN LESS people on the ground in Gaza whereas we have dozens of reporters from Gaza on Al-Jazeera, many of which have died. The way to fact check your news is you find how many times they link factual evidence (like videos of experiences, primary accounts, primary quotes) and compare it with circumstance of publishing.

Here are some ways to fact check and questions to ask, even when looking at Al Jazeera:

Is this a first hand account? If not, does it name a person who experienced this first hand?

If they cite/name a person who experienced it first hand, are they a trustworthy person? What are their ties to the situation? Why would they report this, have they reported situations like this in the past?

What would the person reporting gain from reporting this? A Palestinian with an Instagram post about their life in Gaza has much less to gain than an Israeli soldier publishing their experience in Gaza, for example.

In the first hand account, are there actions or evidence that is corroborated? IE: There was a video of an Israeli soldier abducting a blonde Palestinian, and there was a Human Rights Org that reported child abductions from evidence gather by an on the ground reporter. There is less of a chance that this is false, therefore.

If you don't see other news sources reporting this (ie, you don't see CNN/NYT/BBC/Fox/any other western-led media outlet) then ask: Why would they not report it? Does that mean it's false? Maybe not. Many Euro-american sources spend MONTHS before they talk about an issue (think: Washington post article "questioning" the evidence of Hamas in Al-Shifaa hospital more than a month after the raid happened)

Defining "Trustworthy":

What is their history on reporting events? Are they someone who is well known in whatever community they represent?

Think: Ghassan Abu-Sitta, a world renowned doctor. When he reports something with his name attached, he is putting his entire reputation on the line. Therefore, it is more likely he is telling the truth.

Are they someone who has any real, structural power over the situation? Maha Hussaini, for example, cannot change her circumstances because a ceasefire relies on other people separate from her, a journalist. Therefore, she has less of a reason to lie about things happening to her.

For the news source: what are their ties to the situation? CNN, for example, has stated they have their content reviewed by the IDF. Wael Al-Dahdouh, before he was evacuated, was providing first hand accounts of situation, meaning its difficult for him to fake anything or misrepresent.

What else has this person/news source reported? What are their political leanings — not just left/right, but what are their general stances on a variety of issues?

How many people who are part of the community impacted are part of reporting on this (IE: How many Palestinian POVs are shared, how many Israeli POVs are shared, what are the POVs of the people shared in general?).

Can someone I personally trust vouch for this person? If not, can I ask someone I trust to look over this person/agency and tell me their opinion?

There's for sure more I'm forgetting but these are some ways I personally check my facts and information as a quick rundown. And I see this issue of not knowing how to fact check happen ALL OVER the place, on both sides. So I really, highly encourage everyone to engage with sources more honestly!

You'll make mistakes, everyone does! I do as well! But try to be vigilant about these things so we can ensure that we're spreading accurate information and try to correct information when possible! There's no 100% unbiased source so I encourage you to compare/contrast information and your understandings of the world to fully comprehend the situation!

Please use these questions when checking ANY news source, even Al-Jazeera!

Signal Boost for Writers: Research & Fact-checking comm on Dreamwidth

There used to be a great Livejournal community called "Little Details" that helped all kinds of fiction writers (fanfiction, original works, DMs etc.) with their research and fact-checking.

That comm no longer exists, but it has now opened again on Dreamwidth!

It's also possible to ask a question anonymously, the moderator has made an extra post for that; it's explained in the rules and guidelines post at the top of the page.

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

It's always worrisome to see a post going around where op asserts something followed by a chain of reblogs all going "no way! my mind is blown!" -- but if you glance through the notes you find a whole lot of people debunking it. And it's doubly worrying when it's about health stuff.

Gentle reminder that if something makes you go "no way!" you might want to fact check... and if you aren't sure what to google, you can also skim the post notes to see if someone else has already done it. There are some awesome science folks on Tumblr who like to go look up the relevant papers and share highlights in the notes.

Snopes.com was THE fact-checking / lie-debunking website in the 2000s, covering everything from lighthearted fare like "is this a picture of Bigfoot?" to rumors about Iraq War, which at the time often spread via chain emails or Dick Cheney.

Well, Snopes still exists and I encourage you to check it out. They will investigate until they find the primary source of a photo, a quote, an article. This is especially important in a world where AI is increasingly able to fool the human eye and human ear.

In case you were wondering, the status of the photos / articles I clipped for this post are:

Israel making a deal with BetterHelp - Real, and the company was founded by an IDF soldier who proudly brags about this fact in his online profile. Also they have previously been caught selling private medical information.

IDF soldier threatening a woman with children - Real picture but not from current conflict

Are Palestinians forbidden from collecting rainwater? Yes, and the situation is even more dire than the headline makes it sound. Really recommend this article for a deeper understanding of the discrimination the Palestinians suffered even prior to the current conflict.

Did Israel use white phosphorus on Gaza? The evidence strongly points to yes. This article is VERY good, very well-researched.

outside of the general principles of credibility and fact-checking (or including those if you want) and looking for commitment to peace and shared prosperity like you mentioned in your pinned, do you have any other advice on gauging the reliability of sources regarding israel/palestine? or any particular sources you recommend as reliable or warn against as unreliable? there's so much misinfo and disinfo out there that i often end up getting overwhelmed and sharing nothing specific - and i know that's not exactly helpful, i'm just not sure where to start.

This is SUCH a good and important question!!! Thank you so much for asking it. I’ve been waiting until after work today to answer, so I can give it the attention it deserves.

This is an incredibly complex topic. It is completely ok to tackle only one item of this at a time. It is ok to spend more time listening than speaking. It is ok to only do basic fact checking until these things become second nature. It seems like a lot. But it actually becomes quite simple when you realize that, as a member of a non-affected group, your only job is to steer the conversation toward truth and peace.

That means most of what you are doing is rejecting sources and individuals engaging in bad faith discourse by simply not engaging with them. Your next most common task will be to publicly fact check bad faith discourse or incorrect information that has spread too far.

It is tempting to become outraged when you become familiar with bad faith discourse and data and see it spread widely. However, remember that this is incredibly complex and even the most experienced people get things wrong on this subject all the time. If you notice an error in what appears to be someone trying to bring attention to a cause they care deeply about, approach with kindness first. Always.

Try a reblog or a personal message with a link to the problematic post and say something like,

Hey. I care a lot about [issue] too. And I am trying really hard to make sure everything being spread right now is verifiable and accurate so nobody gets upset about things that aren’t true. Did you know that [thing you said+link to the post where you said it] was actually proven false by [reliable source+link to that source]? I’m really glad that didn’t happen. Of course, terrible things are still happening [to Palestinians/Israelis/Jews/Muslims/Arabs] on/in [college campuses/diaspora/Palestine/Israel/etc] there all the time. But at least nobody has to suffer through [incorrect info]. By the way, I’ve found a lovely organization run by actual Palestinians/Israelis/Arabs/Muslims/Jews working together to find peace for all. Check it out, I think it has promise! [link to reliable cause/organization]

Here is a wonderful site for MENA-based organizations geared toward fostering a shared peaceful future in a variety of ways.

Give the poster a chance to self correct. You will be wrong in the future. Model the way you would like to be informed of an error.

I briefly touched on the basics of identifying any source as reliable here. I won’t reiterate because this may be a long post and I wanna save space. But it contains the basics of what I learned in college.

One of the most important things to keep in mind is that no source is objective. No source is without bias. And there is no way to make any source objective or without bias.

News is written by people. And all people have viewpoints. Giving all voices in a conflict equal importance is not inherently unbiased, because that risks giving support to more harmful ideas and equating harmful ideas, ideologies, and organizations with reasonable ones. Likewise, asserting that one viewpoint is correct and being unwavering in this belief no matter what is obviously no way to cultivate a balanced and well informed viewpoint.

Your job is to use critical thinking skills to examine the level of bias in a piece of media as well as how responsibly the source handles that bias. Your job is also to do your best to be aware of bias as well as what bias is relevant to the subject matter being reported. A source that is left leaning, but never shares fake information and is always verifiable is preferable to a source that is moderate but consistently shares half truths or faulty information.

Sometimes, information from a less than ideal source can be shared, but if you are sharing that source, you must explicitly state that source’s flaws and why you chose to share that information anyway. And if you are unable to find a better source, you should state that you are sharing information that may be incomplete or inaccurate and you are happy to update the post you are sharing if and when more information or confirmation from a more reliable source emerges. There are very limited situations where this is appropriate. Usually I would suggest not sharing information from such sources at all unless it can be backed up by better information.

One example of such a case is information about antisemitic hate crimes from the ADL. The ADL has a very problematic history and one should be aware of it when they share statistical data from the organization. However, that doesn’t make their information inherently unusable. It makes their information inherently suspect, though. In order for anything shared from the ADL to be worth sharing, you should be able to evaluate the data collection method and the sources of the data. And if there is any information in the data you are sharing that is not appropriate, you should explicitly draw attention to it, not try to hide it.

Case Study: Global Antisemitic Incidents in the Wake of Hamas’ War on Israel

This list contains very useful data on incidents of antisemitic violence against Jews in diaspora since 10/7/2023. I trust this data because: it links to each individual news source it references, often with pictures of the attacker/attack/incident and time stamps. It’s data is open to questioning and its sources are available to check individually. This is in line with the ADL’s mission statement of tracking antisemitism. Documenting antisemitism is not an inherently biased practice nor do I have any reason to believe that they lie about the antisemitic incidents they document. As that is not one of the things that critics accuse the ADL of, I do not see a reason to question its record on antisemitic incident reporting. I have never heard a critic make a substantiated claim against their formally collected data as falsified. I am willing to be proven wrong on this, but I will interrogate a source claiming this as thoroughly as I interrogate the ADL as a source itself. I am skeptical of this source because: the title of the article uses extremely biased language that makes the war seem one sided. The advantage of this source is: it is one of the few sources existing that collects data on antisemitic violence and hate incidents of Jews in diaspora. A sign of good faith from the organization: they dedicate a page to addressing criticisms of their organization, which means they feel confident that criticisms of them will stand up to scrutiny. It is not sufficient to use this page to absolve them of any of the listed criticisms, but it should help you find articles that critique the ADL as well as relevant information that supports their defense. Thus, you must come to your own conclusion on whether or not that information is trustworthy on the matter you are commenting on. A sign of possible bad faith from the organization: their page devoted to confronting myths and inaccuracies about their organization’s history does not address accusations about supporting South African Apartheid or failing to call the Armenian Genocide a genocide. An acknowledgment of my own limitations: I am not an expert in South African Apartheid in any way nor am I an expert on the Armenia genocide. Any other relevant information: Any reputable news sources verify information before reporting. If a news source that is verifiably responsible in its reporting cites information from the ADL, I will assume they have made adequate inquiries to verify that information as accurate enough to report. For example, if AP reported information and cited the ADL statistics, I would assume that the ADL made sure the data fit its high standard for reportage.

Conclusion: I find the ADL to be a trustworthy enough source of data about antisemitic attacks and incidents on Jews in diaspora, but only in cases where their sources and/or methodology are made public and/or another more regulated or otherwise more reliable source of statistical information partners with them. Because I lack expertise on South African Apartheid on the Armenian Genocide, I will not share information from the ADL about Palestinian apartheid, segregation, oppression, or genocide (until or unless I become more well-versed in these topics or am able to devote substantial energy into fact checking each claim in what I share. If I ever choose to do this, I will share every source I used to verify the information so that others may check my work and inform me if I’m wrong. At this time, I do not foresee a situation where I would refer to the ADL for matters about Palestinian concerns). The ADL in general and the linked source in particular seems to be an overall worthwhile source to cite on matters of antisemitism. The ADL does not meet my standards of a reliable source on Palestinian suffering. Check each link/source on an ADL source you want to share and form an informed conclusion on its reliability before sharing.

Also, be aware that primary sources with biased information are extremely valuable but never objective on their own. A tweet from the IDF or a statement from a released Palestinian prisoner may both be true! But sharing them as if they are definitely true without fact checking the information through the most trustworthy sources available is irresponsible. Do not share any social media information as fact. You are free to share social media information and publicly explore its implications in a responsible manner, but it is not responsible to discuss them as facts.

Case study: When something in Gaza or Israel is bombed, be sure that you know who the key players and commentators are.

When the IDF releases a statement blaming Hamas for bombing their own citizens, know that the IDF has a vested interest in not being perceived as an aggressor. When the Ministry of Health in Gaza accuses the Israeli military of being responsible for the attack, be aware that the Ministry of Health in Gaza is run by Hamas and is not a third party neutral source. Do not post anything about an event like this until the information is fully vetted by a neutral third party source (or as neutral as you are likely to find on such a hot button issue).

The best way you can help during an emerging story is to urge others to wait for full details, call out people irresponsibly casting blame before the facts are in (especially politicians), and repeatedly verify every source of information as they are named so that you know if they are trustworthy. Do not trust politicians who espouse inflammatory and prematurely accusatory information and do not make a public retraction and apology when they are found to be wrong.

That said, it is always appropriate to express sorrow for loss of life. You do not need to accuse a killer in order to do this.

There are also sites geared toward helping you identify the source itself fairly. Note: sites like these will help you evaluate the publication or news entity (eg New York Times, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, etc.). They won’t help you evaluate an individual journalist or article.

Some sites to help you verify credibility:

Media Bias Fact Check: Allows you to verify sources based on the news source’s political bias in terms of a left-right spectrum as well as by their reliability on matters of science, their use of questionable sources, and use of satire. Also, you can check how reliably factual the source’s reporting is. You can also sort by country, media type, general credibility, and how well trafficked the source is. They also publicly offer insight into their methodology of coming to these conclusions.

The Associated Press (AP) fact checks individual claims. Other news organizations fact checking claims include Reuters, The Washington Post and AFP. While AP is a gold standard and generally reliable, be aware that news organizations are also subject to bias. The advantage is that news organizations have investigative reporters on staff to investigate claims. The disadvantage is the bias inherent to the publication itself.

Other third party cites checking facts in news reports and in politics include:

FactCheck.org

Politifact

Snopes

Lakehead University offers an entire site devoted to developing media literacy as well as many ways to search fact checking sites. So does Kansas State University, and UMass Amherst. Many universities offer sites like this. I urge you to look into them.

Once you find a news or data source you trust, do a quick google search on the journalist’s name and a relevant phrase to the aspect of the conflict being reported on. For example The Newspaper Tribune Times Chronicle may be trustworthy. Veteran reporter, Ima Journalist may have written an article about Israel Bombing Gaza. So, before sharing it, just Google: “Ima journalist” + Israel Palestine Jews antisemitism Islamophobia. Make sure you don’t see something like “Ima Journalist photographed screaming ‘Hitler was actually a super good guy!’ anywhere in her history. When satisfied, feel free to share the story.

Other points to keep in mind:

Be aware of crappy tactics on both sides of the i/p conflict.

The IDF is often accused of excessive violence and planting evidence on Palestinians. This often leads to Palestinians being unfairly accused of terrorist intent and criminal violence.

Hamas uses civilians as human shields — both by using individual humans as shields and also launching bombs from civilian buildings (like hospitals, preschools, and libraries), building militaristic infrastructure in or beneath those same civilian buildings, and instigating conflict with IDF soldiers positioned near residential and civilian locations. This allows Hamas to escape criticism by framing the IDF as mindlessly bloodthirsty and eager to kill Palestinian civilians.

And finally, make sure accusations and talking points never conform to antisemitic conspiracy theories.

The universal aspects of antisemitic conspiracy theories (detailed more fully in the source linked above and also in another post I made) are:

Accusing Jews of replacing another group or population

Accusing Jews of pretending to be something they are not

Accusing Jews of dominating or attempting to dominate a prominent or essential aspect of a society or the world at large.

Accusing Jewish people of genocide and bloodlust in pursuit of personal gain

Accusing Jews of undue privilege or if appropriating something belonging to others.

Dehumanizing Jews by grouping them under a collective name or identity.

I hope this helps! Feel free to share it!

Apologies to my comics friends here but this is ridiculous:

Just the photo for folks who like to ZOOM!

I've been handling guns since I was 6yrs old. These are OBVIOUSLY not real pistols. You can tell by the screw holes in the frames, the mold/assembly lines, the undersized magwells, and the VERY clear airsoft magazines. It's a specific mix of contemporary guns too, including at least 7 H&K USPS, which cost about $1,200 each, assorted Glocks, "tactical" 1911s, and genetic S&W/ Beretta autos. They're some of the most common airsoft guns. The guns that aren't obvious plastic reproductions show no wear, and "custom" features that you wouldn't see on say, smuggled military weapons being carried around by local militia in a region that is absolutely littered with cheaper older Soviet hardware. Even looted American weapons would more likely include a bunch of very beat up Beretta M9s.

Plus a random Winchester 92? Is John Wayne's ghost backing HAMAS?

This is my favorite part though:

THAT appears to be a PILE of Knights Armament PDWs and only KAC PDWs. That gun is an "experimental" rifle w/ a $3k price tag. It chambers a proprietary 6x35mm round or 300 Blackout. Not standard ammo for any major military on Earth, making it a terrible choice for guerilla fighters. 500rds of 300blk will cost you as much as a basic S&W M&P (a civilian M4 clone) in .556 if you can find it in the US. The KAC PDW is also a popular airsoft rifle since it's rare, expensive, and dripping with tacticool features. There are almost certainly more airsoft versions than real ones in the world, but I can't say for sure because I can't find a number produced online.

There are NO AKs, M4s, M16s, FN FALs- guns that might conceivably be available in numbers for insurgent militia in the region. It's not uncommon to see fighters in the Middle East still fielding WW2-era weapons, but the only other long gun I can even try to ID on that table is essentially a cowboy gun! 🤠

A refugee camp had a baker's dozen of these though. 👇

A niche gun, so unused in any real number that the sum total of its service history on Wikipedia (gun guys religiously, lovingly maintain gun Wikis) is this:

There are at least 13 of them in this picture, so either that's nigh $40k sharing a table with rusted hunting guns and toys or ALSO TOYS!

(I still prefer LEGO)

10 minutes of searching on my phone was enough to prove this shit isn't real. And I am very very sleepy today. Writing this post took longer than tracking down that rifle by its features. I know this might not be as obvious to people who haven't handled real guns but for anyone remotely familiar with them, this looks like a joke.

This makes American cops posing around a ziploc bag of weed look good by comparison. That weed might be real.

This is extremely lazy misinformation work. It's a pathetically low effort ruse from an army that could easily have just planted real weapons. The only reason someone would post this for the world to see and claim it's real is if they're very, very stupid, think we are, or are well beyond trying because they know they hold a position of such untouchable privilege that they're cool doing the bare minimum of covering their asses. Like the cops!

All of those options make me real sad. So I'm going to just post this and never check on the comments.

A growing number of people believe that the war in Ukraine isn't real. Not the usual conspiracy theorist belief that takes Putin's motives at face value, but that it's entirely being staged by Ukraine. This is being advanced by noted right-wing internet figure Catturd and going off retweets, at least 18,000 people believe this, bc we live in a hellworld

As always their reasoning is absolutely convincing to anyone inside their media bubble and absolute lunacy to anyone outside of it

The claim isn't that some footage of Ukraine is doctored. It's that there isn't any footage. At all.

Which sounds like total bullshit to anyone not within the cult. No footage? It's just about the most documented war of modern times. There are entire subreddits and Twitter accounts devoted to posting dozens of new videos from the war daily. It's a war between two European countries in a era where everyone has smartphones and cameras are regularly mounted on military equipment, of course there's an abundance of footage

To paraphrase Dan Olson's video about flat Earth/QAnon, it's the type of thing that drives anyone curious about the world and understanding it insane.

"No graphs explaining how the war is going" There are multiple websites doing daily maps of the war. Wikipedia has one on every page of anything associated with Ukraine.

"Zelenskyy jet setting around the world" Well, yeah, what do you expect him to do? Lead troops into battle personally like a medieval lord? Zelenskyy is President of Ukraine, and the President handles international relations while the Prime Minister is the head of government (tbf, I think a lot of Americans don't realize the President of Ukraine isn't like the President of the US but is like...well, most European countries with Presidents [except for France, where the President is the most powerful government figure]). This is his job.

The Catturds of the world know that. They're banking on the idea that their followers don't, that they absorb information about the world entirely through their prism. They aren't shown war footage, they're shown the staged celebrity photo-ops and told that's all there is, that everything else doesn't exist or is fake.

Which is good for keeping the converted converted, but may be too out there for your garden variety reflexive contrarian; on the other hand, it's good for converting the remaining true believers into the type of overtly antisemitic fascist that understands what MAGA types really mean when they rant about "evil globalist worms".

This is a post that’s not about animals, but instead about what this blog has brought into my life. Because I want to say thanks.

If you’ve been around since the beginning, you’ll know that this space is where I first learned to fact-check, and where I fell headfirst in love with doing it.

In the earliest WADTT posts, I repeated a lot of common wisdom and things I’d been told from single highly visible sources. I was fresh out of college and fell into the trap of feeling like an expert based on a discrete set of experiences. It was you, the blog readers, who pushed me to ask “why?” when I was told something was true, and question the sourcing for everything. As the blog grew, so did the depth and breadth of what I fact-checked, and the lengths I’d go to find an answer. My independent projects grew out of that, such as the cat data paper and the legislative analyses. But there’s more than came of it…

That’s all a long-winded way of leading up to saying that, because of this space, I work as a professional fact-checker now! WADTT was not just what sparked my passion for fact-checking, but also my first work experience. It is what got the first company I contracted with to take a chance on me - they actually knew of the blog!

I work mostly on science videos and articles, and recently, I’ve branched out into fact-checking non-fiction book manuscripts. (Did you know that most non-fiction books are less rigorously checked for accuracy than magazine articles?) It’s one of my favorite things to do with my time, and it is still incredible to me that it’s a real adult job and I get to do it.

I’m posting about it today because I want to brag, just a little, about this incredibly sweet article that was written by one of the authors whose manuscript I worked on this spring. She told me she was writing an article about the experience of fact-checking from an author’s perspective - I had no idea her praise would be this effusive. It’s so validating: I started here on Tumblr, with you, working to correct misconceptions about animal content, and now I get to fact-check things for a job and professional people value me as a fellow actual professional. Insert internal screaming here.

So yeah. This is a thing I get to do because of this space and the support and enthusiasm about it from everyone over the years. It’s amazing.

(Also! The book discussed in this article, The Possibility of Life, is amazing and I highly recommend you check it out when it’s published next year. It’s a look at about how we imagine alien life in science and in fiction, and what we can learn from comparing the two.)

AUDREY MCCABE, REED MCMASTER, and PETE TSIPIS at MMFA:

On April 15, former President Donald Trump walked into a Manhattan courtroom for the first day of his trial for charges of falsifying business records in order to conceal hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Trump and right-wing media immediately began spreading lies about the trial. 

Right-wing media have wrongly claimed: that a gag order the judge issued on Trump is a violation of his freedom of speech, that the judge has barred Trump from attending his son’s graduation, that Trump should have been charged with misdemeanors rather than felonies, and that Trump should not be prosecuted because Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the Steele dossier is similar and yielded only a fine.  In reality, the case centers on Trump’s attempts to conceal hush money payments to Daniels, who allegedly had an affair with the former president. Trump funneled the payments to Daniels through his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who was sentenced to three years in prison for his role in the scheme as well as other crimes. Prosecutors allege that Trump violated election law in paying off Daniels as it was part of a coordinated effort to assist his 2016 campaign and may have also violated state tax law by mischaracterizing Cohen’s reimbursement. Experts say Merchan’s gag order is consistent with case law. Merchan also declined to answer Trump’s request to be excused from court on May 17 to attend his son’s graduation, stating that it was too early to make a decision but signaling an openness to it. 

@mediamattersforamerica has a handy guide debunking the right-wing media's myths about the Donald Trump election interference trial for falsification of business records in Manhattan.

Considering how Twitter, YouTube and Facebook have terminated most of their departments that were responsible for limiting the spread of dis/misinformation, it’s going to be an exceptionally bad election season in 2024. Worse even, than the 2016 elections. The example here is intentionally glaring in its differences from Biden’s fake vs. his real words. But far more subtle deep fakes are coming (or are already here). Even if think that YOU can always spot the difference, others may not be able to, and do not underestimate your ability to be fooled by something that you tacitly support or subconsciously agree with. And that’s without even getting into troll farms. So please be weary of the media you consume.

Please help spread awareness and share.

Recent claims from British Columbia’s BC United Party are misrepresenting the nature of funds received by a BC-based drug user advocacy group Drug User Liberation Front.

DULF was one of many organizations that received funding from Vancouver Coastal Health in 2022. 

BC United issued a press release regarding the funds received by DULF which was itself based on an earlier Global News article about the funding, claiming the BC NDP was helping “organized crime” to “purchase illicit drugs from the dark web.”

[...]

The Global News article claims that they had “obtained documents” regarding the funding, however, those documents are publicly available to everyone on the VCH website.

The article claims DULF received the funding “to operate what the group calls a “’compassion club’ selling heroin, methamphetamine and cocaine.” 

However, experts as well as the government say this claim is off-base.

Full article

This is just straight up stigma about drugs and substance use. Not only are the Global News article and BC United statement full of misinformation, their true goal is to deny funding that goes to support and advocacy for people who use substances.

These people are trying to create a moral panic around people who use drugs to try to deny them support and advocacy, and they aren't even trying to deny their hatred and lack of compassion.

Removing this funding would only increase the already harmful marginalization of people who use substances.

(Commentary from Samira, @politicsofcanada )

A few good sites/pages for learning some media literacy and spotting online misinformation:

Snopes.com - a site that’s been around for twenty years (long before Google search engine was a thing) debunking urban legands and, more recently, fake news and misinformation.

Checkyourfact.com - a site similar to snopes that debunks fake news and viral “facts”. It’s the place I found out that post about Kraft releasing a rainbow coloured mayo called “Real Gaydo” for pride month was a satirical photoshop piece that was stolen from its original artist’s Instagram and shared around as a real product on Facebook and other sites.

School Library Journal - has a page of resources for teaching students and teachers how to spot misinformation and fake news and improve media literacy.

NAMLE.net - aka the National Association for Media Literacy Education, the leading nonprofit membership organization dedicated to advancing media literacy education in the United States.

Newslit.org - an educational nonprofit that provides programs and resources for learning media literacy. What’s cool about this site is they have an extensive number of quizzes designed to help you test your media literacy skills, which give you tips along with the question answers about how to spot and avoid misinformation and fake news. All of which you can try out for yourself here.

If anyone has more good online literacy resources like this, please feel free to add more!

I don’t think arguing with this person is productive, but is there actually evidence for the claim “dehumanization is an ideological mindset unrelated to mental health?”

Because from what I can tell, people who are in high control groups are often trained to dehumanize people, and it’s true that anyone with any personality profile can join a high control group.

However, usually those who do join such groups are experiencing poor mental health at the time they join.

The other thing I think of when I think about dehumanization is conspiracy theories, as those often involve blaming difficulties on groups of people and then dehumanizing them.

And while again, anyone can fall for conspiracy theories, you do tend to see it a lot in people struggling with issues of paranoia. Because the conspiracy 1) validates them in thinking someone is out to get them AND 2) explains why other people don’t agree with their beliefs (it’s a conspiracy, thus hidden.)

So… what?

I feel like tumblr is full of people just *saying* things like this and not citing.

And then you find out like six months later that people are twisting some vague factoid about a small finding from a limited study into some huge claim.

Anyone got a sense of the source for this one?