Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

Also, any W3C folks who complain about the tone of the feedback to Google's DRM proposal but aren't *openly* doing everything in their power to kill the proposal, are telling on themselves

Propaganda is all around us - it's not just a Russian thing. But it can be difficult to identify and do something against.

So here are a couple of easy ways in which you can help push back against propaganda, without needing to inhale a book of political theory first!

Importantly, you don't need to go particularly hard on any of these. Apply them subtly - people encountering these responses repeatedly is what will make them stick.

1. Neoliberal/capitalist policy, "keep politics out of tech", centrism etc. are often presented as some sort of "purely rational, neutral" approach.

This is propaganda - these are based on ideology just like any other political position (usually an ideology that harms marginalized folks), but by framing them as being neutral, they can escape scrutiny and become 'unquestionable'.

What you can do: whenever anyone talks about these things, make sure to call them an 'ideology' when talking about them. You don't have to press the point; just insert the term somewhere natural in your comments. Let people get used to seeing it as an ideology that needs scrutiny like any other.

2. A common propaganda technique is to divert attention from oppressive policies by blaming the victims for their response to it instead.

One example of this is theft; it's easy to speak poorly of thieves, but rarely does anyone ever ask why they need to steal in the first place, why they cannot afford to just buy things.

What you can do: when someone complaints about thieves, respond by talking about the real cause instead ("yeah, I agree, billionaires are thieves") or by asking the other person why they think someone is stealing in the first place. Feign confusion when you get evasive answers like "because they're too lazy to work".

3. Following from that point, another common propaganda technique is to make or inspire comments that are socially accepted but feel kind of... off. Like that comment about people being "too lazy to work".

This stops the discussion dead, by presenting a very questionable claim with a subtext that's not really directly disputable, because they never *explicitly* claimed the thing that you know they mean.

What you can do: feign confusion. Keep asking "but why?", "why would someone do that?", "couldn't they just _____?", "do you know anyone like that?", just keep asking deeper questions until the other person runs out of superficial comments.

By that point one of a couple of things is likely to happen: 1) the mask drops, and you find out they are racist/fascist/etc., 2) they didn't mean ill, and they realize that their beliefs are kinda flimsy and introspect, or 3) they get frustrated and stop the discussion, and will likely be more careful about bringing up the claim next time. All are wins.

--

For all of these counterpropaganda techniques, the social aspect is the important part - you make it clear that something they previously held as undisputed, isn't as universally believed as they thought, but without a direct confrontation.

You express disapproval, confusion, or an 'agreement' on something they didn't originally mean but also can't quite disagree with. You give them reason to reevaluate their assumptions in silence. This has a lot more effect than you might expect.

Every once in a while I get linked to a Twitter post, I go there, and the entire page (replies and all) is just littered with overconfident blue checkmarks and cryptoshit scams

And also you should really sit for a moment with the question of where you picked up this belief, because it's certainly not historically supported.

If your view about improving the world is that "it's not possible because the average person is too ignorant"... you're ableist. In addition to being wrong in every other way, of course.

Whenever discussing police abolition with people outside of radical circles, the dynamic is almost always the same: the default position is that its existence is default-good and its abolition is the case that needs to be 'proven', and it boils down to "the other person feels unsafe about a world without police".

Which, like, sure. But isn't it a little weird that I feel unsafe about a world *with* police, and somehow that's considered the weird position to take? That for some reason, that's seen as a position that needs defending, rather than it being taken on face value?

Why is "I feel unsafe about a world without police" somehow considered a more valid or reasonable position than "I feel unsafe about a world *with* police"? Even though, being the status quo, the former is much less likely to be a careful and well-supported conclusion?

https://ecoevo.social/@ryneches/110750157640601468