That’s right, it’s certainly not a good idea to leave the head of department out of the loop - this position should definitely be informed about every relevant process. I just think that it’s in everyone’s interest if senior management can be seen by the “common people” from time to time. It shows appreciation for the work and opinions of all employees and is also a good opportunity to make sure that no important aspects or overly technical details may have been lost on the way from the head of department to the executive floor. Just as you say.

Thx

Why not consult the people who actually know their stuff? It doesn’t have to be a meeting with presentations, expectations and all that. Don’t you think that management could use your help and advice to make good strategic decisions in the long term?

That sounds like a good employer with some reasonable management. What industry was that, if you don’t mind me asking?

I think you’re confusing smart asses with wafflers.

I commented this earlier: I have no particular dislike for any country. I just don’t like some people I know personally or whose actions are known to me.

And I mean just that. I don’t see how it would be helpful to anyone to hate on people you actually know nothing about. This simple concept of nations might be alright at the Olympics and such but it is not when it comes to judging a whole nation, meaning hundreds of thousands if not millons of people.

Edit: I did mean to comment on your reply.

What I mean is that the people of a country are not the same as their government. Never was like that, never will be.

Edit: I did mean to comment on your reply.

What I mean is that the people of a country are not the same as their government. Never was like that, never will be.

Why not think of “them” as “people from another country”? That is what they actually are - just people but from another country.

I have no particular dislike for any country. I just don’t like some people I know personally or whose actions are known to me.

Ok, noted. Will try to do better. Just one more followup question: Why do you think my presumptions are unfounded? I mean besides that you seem to have faith in the good of all people and don’t seem to think that there is such a thing as computational propaganda.

Well, I guess we have to agree that we disagree then.

Is your argument that it’s okay to spread hate and slander without providing any evidence as long as people aren’t getting paid? Also, what makes you so sure that these are private accounts?

I’m sorry you’ve had a bad experience. Nevertheless, I think that a certain basic skepticism is important in social media, because it is simply a fact that many interest groups on the internet are fighting for sovereignty of interpretation and use enormous resources to assert themselves - even with very questionable methods. This of course makes it difficult to build trust and have an open discourse. The advantage of Lemmy, however, is that at least the platform itself does not interfere too much, like Meta, X or TikTok do. Therefore, it seems to me that there is a much higher probability that you will be heard with your opinion, message or whatever, if you can provide good arguments for your point of view. Sure, there are some viewpoints that users reject despite good arguments, but from my Lemmy experience so far, that seems to me to be the exception rather than the rule.

It is certainly true that other interest groups also engage in propaganda (or PR, as it is called these days) in both traditional and social media. But that’s not what this thread is about.

Anyway, you can perhaps even see something positive in the fact that the usual PR and opinion manipulation methods are now apparently also being applied to Lemmy, because this shows that whoever is responsible for these campaigns obviously ascribes a certain importance to this platform and thus also to the Fediverse - and that is somewhat of a good thing, I guess.

Exactly. I mean accounts that are typically not very old and exclusively spread right-wing content and the corresponding ideas - apart from perhaps a few low effort comments or posts that are most likely intended to conceal this fact. What makes these accounts even more suspicious to me is that they generally do not put forward any factual arguments, are not impressed by them in any way and are not even interested in a discussion. If you confront them and they respond at all, they always lapse into whataboutism or fall back on the familiar “I’m just asking questions” - both are strategies that think tanks in particular use to deflect attention from the fact that their claims and accusations have no factual basis. I can only conclude from such behavior that it is not about exchanging ideas with others, but about promoting a clearly defined world view, creating discord and aggression, tying up resources or forming a nucleus for belief in irrational assertions. I don’t think private individuals without a political agenda would do that - at least not to this extent.

What makes you think they are?

They even try to do this on Lemmy. I’ve seen a few accounts recently that were obviously created with the sole purpose of spreading right-wing propaganda.