China is using the world's largest known online disinformation operation to harass Americans, a CNN review finds | CNN
www.cnn.com
The Chinese government has built up the world’s largest known online disinformation operation and is using it to harass US residents, politicians, and businesses—at times threatening its targets with violence, a CNN review of court documents and public disclosures by social media companies has found.

The Chinese government has built up the world’s largest known online disinformation operation and is using it to harass US residents, politicians, and businesses—at times threatening its targets with violence, a CNN review of court documents and public disclosures by social media companies has found.

The onslaught of attacks – often of a vile and deeply personal nature – is part of a well-organized, increasingly brazen Chinese government intimidation campaign targeting people in the United States, documents show.

The US State Department says the tactics are part of a broader multi-billion-dollar effort to shape the world’s information environment and silence critics of Beijing that has expanded under President Xi Jinping. On Wednesday, President Biden is due to meet Xi at a summit in San Francisco.

Victims face a barrage of tens of thousands of social media posts that call them traitors, dogs, and racist and homophobic slurs. They say it’s all part of an effort to drive them into a state of constant fear and paranoia.

  • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
    144·
    1 year ago

    No it doesn’t? Literally in the overview section

    Some Marxist socialists emphasise Karl Marx’s belief in democracy[51] and call themselves democratic socialists.[20] The Socialist Party of Great Britain and the World Socialist Movement define socialism in its classical formulation as a “system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the community.”[52] Additionally, they include classlessness, statelessness and the abolition of wage labour as characteristics of a socialist society, characterising it as a stateless, propertyless, post-monetary economy based on calculation in kind, a free association of producers, workplace democracy and free access to goods and services produced solely for use and not for exchange.[53] Although these characteristics are usually reserved to describe a communist society,[54] this is consistent with the usage of Marx, Friedrich Engels and others, who referred to communism and socialism interchangeably.[55]

    The only difference between a socialist party and a communist party is branding for people who don’t know what either thing is

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
      91·
      1 year ago

      I’m not trying to be pedantic here, but I did want to add that there is a big difference between democractic socialism and social democracy. Jacobin has a great article on what the differences are … below are 2 quotes that highlight the basics.

      Nordic countries — Finland, Norway, and Sweden — are social democracies. They have constitutional representative democracies, extensive welfare benefits, corporatist collective bargaining between labor and capital that is managed by the state, and some state ownership of the economy.

      Democratic socialism, on the other hand, should involve public ownership over the vast majority of the productive assets of society, the elimination of the fact that workers are forced into the labor market to work for those who privately own those productive assets, and stronger democratic institutions not just within the state but within workplaces and communities as well. Our characterization of democratic socialism represents a profound deepening of democracy in the economy.

      • jackalope@lemmy.ml
        37·
        1 year ago

        It’s really more of a spectrum.

        Also words are literally determined by use. Arguing about then as if they have inherent meaning is stupid.

        • StalinsSpoon@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          Sure, but it’s important to distinguish when a word is being used two different ways, and the only way to do that is define them.

          There are people who use Lenin’s definition of “socialism” as the name for the transitioning stage between capitalism and the communist goal in the Manifesto.

          There are also people who use “socialism” to mean any time the government does any regulation or helpful policy of any kind.

          • jackalope@lemmy.ml
            21·
            1 year ago

            Fair. The only thing I’m trying to do here is fight the unnecessary reification of words.

            Also worth noting that Marx never refers to two stages transition between capitalism and communism. He does refer to higher and lower stages of communism but those don’t map to lenin’s usage with socialism etc.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      78·
      1 year ago

      You know most people differentiate between socialism and communism now right? It is definitely more nuanced than your argument of all democratic socialism wants to transition into communism.

      • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
        93·
        1 year ago

        People can call themselves whatever they want to call themselves, but if their goal isn’t a currencyless, stateless society without private property and based on mutual aid they aren’t socialist they’re sparkling capitalists.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.comEnglish
          19·
          1 year ago

          I bet you’re also one of those people who goes around complaining about “liberals” and then wonders why so many people think you’re a right winger.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.worldEnglish
        71·
        1 year ago

        No, it’s not. Even they differentiated between socialism and communism. But they are correct in their assertion that the ultimate goal of socialism would be achieving a state like communism. Not a state as in a nation. But a state as in a state of being.

        Whether or not you think such thing is possible in this moment. And I think most people would say it’s probably still a little ways off. Even you ultimately would like a society in which you were free to do whatever you desired. Whatever stimulated you intellectually and explore your passions. Without having to worry about being a wage slave.