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.
Pointing out patterns of manipulation isn’t the same as accusing individuals of bad faith. Influence operations are well-documented, and recognizing when engagement follows known tactics is about awareness, not personal attacks. If someone is engaging in good faith, discussing these concerns shouldn’t be an issue. Still, I believe it’s more prudent to acknowledge and warn others about the presence of bad actors on the platform than to ignore the reality that they exist.
Still, I believe it’s more prudent to acknowledge and warn others about the presence of bad actors on the platform than to ignore the reality that they exist.
you don’t actually know what the reality is. you are choosing to spread fud.
If someone is engaging in good faith, discussing these concerns shouldn’t be an issue.
no, it’s a red herring. either what they are saying is true and reasonable or it is not. poisoning the well with implications of bad faith is, itself, bad faith.
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.
Pointing out patterns of manipulation isn’t the same as accusing individuals of bad faith. Influence operations are well-documented, and recognizing when engagement follows known tactics is about awareness, not personal attacks. If someone is engaging in good faith, discussing these concerns shouldn’t be an issue. Still, I believe it’s more prudent to acknowledge and warn others about the presence of bad actors on the platform than to ignore the reality that they exist.
you don’t actually know what the reality is. you are choosing to spread fud.
no, it’s a red herring. either what they are saying is true and reasonable or it is not. poisoning the well with implications of bad faith is, itself, bad faith.