"#Mastodon: A Social Media Platform Dominated By #Pedophiles & #Child #Porn"

The #disinformation at #Secjuice is quite well done: The article gives itself an #investigative veneer, there are many links, alleged evidence and screenshots. Everything seems somehow conclusive - if you read too fast....

secjuice.com/mastodon-child-po

Obviously, the author leaves out, that the majority of the community moderates other inhuman attitudes such as #racism, #sexism, #homophobia and #transphobia and blocks instances which don't actively take action against this content.
That's also why radical right-wing Mastodon projects like Gab.ai don't stand a chance in the community and wither away in isolation....

Just another article filled with #bullshit...

@avedik Would like to see some debunking of this because I've already seen it used as for example a wikipedia source to claim that the #mastodon user surge in april 2017 was caused by #pedophiles

Follow

@73ms @avedik

A good way to counter mis-information would be to ask for people to back up claims with EVIDENCE. Another way is to provide EVIDENCE to back up statements.

As far as I am aware Wikipedia is NOT considered an academic source of information. No harm in quoting it depends on where you are using that information.

@zleap @73ms
Asking for #evidence in a private discussion makes always sense.

I think it is more complicated however, if a 'author' is writing on a news-platform that "#Mastodon is a Social Media Platform Dominated By #Pedophiles & #Childporn"

And if he is smart enough to give the article a conclusive touch with alleged evidence...

Is it worth to react? If so, how?

@avedik @73ms

You could always try a indirect approach ask for more information and links to sources to help verify the information.

Eitehr that we ignore the bad journalists and promote / praise those who are doing the right thing, but I guess we need to balance that wit helping the less experienced do a better job.

Everyone has to start somewhere, it is the attitude to improving what and how you do things that should also count.

@zleap @avedik You're right, Wikipedia is not really a source at all and one should always look at the references there instead of just accepting whatever is written but it does still matter what is there. Not everyone is going to check sources and Google for example displays parts of Wikipedia articles when you search for something that has one.

Thankfully Wikipedia should be reasonably to correct too but it becomes easier if you can point to quality sources.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.