100% no.

The article, if you care to read it, documents how disinformation works. You start with a little, inconsequential lie, get your suckers in a row who yearn to be part of something, then escalate.

The clear path from anti vax to killing people you don't like is well underway. If it wasn't so horrifying, speed running nazi germany would be fascinating.

I read the article it comes off exactly has the op said.

The narcissist and xenophobic desire to label everything exotic or foreign points of view as evil "nazis".

You are feeding the radicalism while thinking you are stopping it

So often hacker news users just use downvotes to silence inconvenient arguments against behaviours on the left.

I think there may be a disconnect in this conversation around a couple of points: 1) different views around misinformation about things like natural food are not a big deal, and 2) political misinformation has become a big deal

You rightfully defended #1. The parent you replied to is rightfully concerned about #2. The article said that sometimes #1 ends up leading to #2.

Nobody seems to be saying that #1 is equivalent to #2.

It’s insane how blatant it is in this article. Fascism is literally used here to mean “something I don’t like”.

I don’t agree with anti-vaxxers who fought lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates. But these people are quite literally fighting for less government control. How can that be construed as fascist?

> is a practitioner of “shamanic arts” who eats natural and organic food, and has more than once been described as an “ecofascist”.

People who eat “natural and organic food” secretly want the state to control their lives? Give me a fucking break!

The word fascism may not be as precisely or universally defined as you seem to think. In the UK over the last several decades its chief association has been with German Nazis and British Nationalists, movements characterised by antisemitism and xenophobia. Examples of those do appear in the text.

However that the word fascism is used sparingly probably indicates the authors' own doubt that it is the appropriate term.

> these people are quite literally fighting for less government control. How can that be construed as fascist?

At risk of derailing this thread... It's entirely possible for someone to fight against government control in specific areas of policy. If that person feels threatened they might become more strident in their views, and become more supportive of new policies that implemented their preferences 'firmly'.

I've rarely seen anyone support 'less government' in 100% of situations. When anyone's societal values are threatened (real or imagined) there will be demand for the government to do something about it. When people feel increasingly threatened, they support increasingly 'robust' politicians.

Having said all that, I agree that the word 'fascist' is unhelpful here.