Right, but the number of people spreading the same wrong thing in multiple threads hours after they were openly provided direct info as to their error, starts to make it seem like a coordinated disinfo campaign.
Yes, it is possible to be wrong on the internet without a malicious intent. It’s also possible to spread disinfo without being a malicious actor, since the whole point of disinfo is to get other people to take it up and spread it, occluding the real issue and disrupting genuine conversation about it.
For clarity, I am not accusing you of being a malicious or disingenuous actor here. No offense, but I doubt you arrived at your position in a vacuum, you probably heard it from somewhere else first I imagine?
Right, but the number of people spreading the same wrong thing in multiple threads hours after they were openly provided direct info as to their error, starts to make it seem like a coordinated disinfo campaign.
Yes, it is possible to be wrong on the internet without a malicious intent. It’s also possible to spread disinfo without being a malicious actor, since the whole point of disinfo is to get other people to take it up and spread it, occluding the real issue and disrupting genuine conversation about it.
For clarity, I am not accusing you of being a malicious or disingenuous actor here. No offense, but I doubt you arrived at your position in a vacuum, you probably heard it from somewhere else first I imagine?
It’s a logical conclusion from quack, imo. It’s the second thing that came to my mind after the obvious ‘oh duh cause he’s Russias agent’