this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
1297 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
59578 readers
3053 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
PROPAGANDA. Please use the actual word. Why use two words when one do trick?
From Wikipedia:
Propaganda isn’t always fake news, it can also be true stuff presented in a biased way.
Similarly, fake news isn’t always propaganda. Some is just stuff spread by trolls to make fun of people.
It can also be true stuff presented in an unbiased way. There's a disconnect here between the proper definition of the word, which is perfectly neutral, and its connotations because the what secretary for tsunami safety doesn't call their stuff "propaganda" but "public service announcement". Still the same thing, though, the tsunami safety secretary is trying to persuade the audience to not be stupid and get to high ground as soon as the sea recedes. Very much pushing an agenda, they *gasp* want people to survive and *gasp* use communication to achieve it.
Can it? I searched a bit and all the definitions I’ve found seem to be about swaying public opinion, not simple objective announcements.
It does have a negative connotation even though it can be used for good, but I still don’t think purely objective messages like “a tsunami is coming, get to high ground” should count as propaganda.
What about things like this?
Which btw yes certainly has editorialising going on. The answer to "Useless projects are funded with EU money" starts with "National and regional authorities in the EU countries select projects which they think meet their needs best in line with the strategies and priorities agreed with the Commission." Which isn't saying that EU money doesn't found useless projects, but implicitly blames regional authorities for it. I don't even think they want to mislead, here, they simply want to stay diplomatic.
(This video about the canopy walk is brilliant. (enable subtitles)).
I think that qualifies as propaganda too: its intention is to improve the public opinion of the Cohesion policy by clearing misconceptions.
(About the “project” in the video… what the hell? I had to Google it because I wasn’t convinced it was a real thing. Just why?)
Corruption, that's why. Similar to how the Italian mafia would half-build highway bridges with taxpayer money and then mysteriously have some shell company go bankrupt. OLAF is on it because of course they are when stuff makes the press. If they have a case EPPO will take over at which point that Hungarian mayor will have the questionable honour of being up against the gal who cleaned up Romania... before Hungarian courts. If those turn out to be corrupt then that's going to buy the mayor time but ultimately the ECJ would overrule them. Still no mechanism to actually set boots on member state grounds but Hungary is already on thin ice when it comes to getting suspended from the EU for various reasons, they're going to tread lightly.
See if you want to be corrupt in the EU you have to do it like the big boys: Implement some policy, then get a cushy job at a company. Or receive tons of money for boring private speeches. Something like that, directly grabbing into state coffers is so uncivilised.
EDIT: Oh, Hungary didn't join EPPO, figures. They can still freeze assets, though. Also if I understand things correctly our mayor would turn into a fugitive in the rest of the EU.
Yes, I figured but… isn’t that a bit too obvious? Surely there had to be a less blatant way of laundering money than… a treetop walk with no trees?
It's also lazy and they're used to not getting investigated or even called out. But even if prosecution is high and you're not lazy you get corrupt politicians doing blatantly obvious stuff like the mask scandal in Germany, making a fortune of selling FFP2 masks at ludicrous markups to the state: Their behaviour was not technically illegal (laws got adjusted since then), the only one who got prosecuted got prosecuted for tax evasion, not corruption.