this post was submitted on 09 May 2026
715 points (97.9% liked)

Fediverse

42036 readers
121 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, Mbin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It became the only reliable source of information I had. People posted links with a minimal amount of commentary, picking and choosing the best content from other social media networks. They’re not doing it to “build a brand” because that’s not a thing in the Fediverse. It’s too disjointed to be a place to build a newsletter subscription base.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Furbag@pawb.social 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Good read, but I think the author touched on something that is way more troubling. Sure, you can get reliable information from regular people who are living in other parts of the world, but spreading that information with any kind of veracity is almost impossible due to the collapse in public trust of mainstream media.

If I say something with any degree of authority or confidence, someone in the comments will inevitably chant the ancestral magic spell "Source?!" and suddenly my evidence of a conversation with a stranger on the internet is reduced to merely anecdotal at best. Able to be dismissed outright without thought or care.

However, if I post a link to some legacy media rag, existing in the modern day as a mere husk being puppeteered by corporate oligarchs, wearing the skin of a legitimate and trustworthy news source, the credibility of the information is then called into question by anybody reasonable - knowing full well that right-wing governments have managed to capture most of the remaining independent reporting, or at least have threatened them with who-knows-what in an attempt to influence their press releases that would otherwise paint the government or any of their cronies in a negative light. If someone decides that the provided source doesn't line up with their narrative, it's hilariously easy to attack the reporting itself as being "fake news".

The brain shuts off, and information gets siloed. Objective reality is no longer shared. We are still living in a state of simply believing whatever we want to believe and the few people who are able to break out of that are not going to be influential enough to have an effect on anything. We can pat ourselves on the back for not being a group of people concerned with being brand-builders, I guess, but in the end it's a meaningless victory.

[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Welcome to the post-modern era of truth. Where objective reality doesn't matter, only personal truth and reality. If what you're saying doesn't fit my personal truth, you're using fake news or making it up. Even scientific research is fake news if it doesn't fit my narrative. Just look at who funded the research.

Honestly, idk what we're going to do. It feels like with all the age verification laws being pushed, the mass surveillance, and the quelling of dissenting opinions, the world admins are looking at 1984 as a guidebook. Are we going to get a Ministry of Truth established soon to "verify" what is accurate and what is not?

[–] edg@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Not sure I understand your point. Your self reported experiences, as a random internet stranger in a sea of bots and malevalent actors, IS only amecdotal at best.

[–] elephantium@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Personally, I think you just proved their point. Anything they know from talking to people who know things is immediately dismissed with "oh, it's anecdotal at best".