Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

washingtonpost.com

21–30 of 1001 posts

Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

#21
post #10

The scale of deep body trauma that has been done to the US will not seem clear today, but it will have dire consequences for the future trajectory of US. I am sad for this, for the current status quo I was born under, but I suppose History must happen.

I'm not sad for myself. I'm older and established. I'm scared for my cousins, nieces, nephews, and children for the fucking train wreck they're going to step into.

It was bad enough with 2001, 2008, and 2020. But this is next level.

Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

#25
post #20

Remember when people pretended it was the scandal of all scandals that the IRS was reviewing PACs who were forbidden from doing political activity for political activity? And now many of those same people are cheering this, and the act blue ‘investigation’, and the threats against Harvard’s tax exempt status for nakedly corrupt reasons? Man I wish shame still had some stopping power.

[flagged]

I’m sure you’d find the exact same thing if some grifty billionaire funded a fake investigation into those people who were contributing money to WinRed and yet, only one of the two is facing investigation.. it is so far past the time when this DOJ should be given the benefit of the doubt and steel manning their obvious corruption doesn’t make anyone seem scholarly, just credulous.

Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

#26
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yes, as described in the blog post, I would imagine the median Fox News viewer to find Wikipedia biased. But the median Fox News viewer is not the median American, much less median world citizen. But no seriously, having finished reading it, this article is incredibly Christian-centric and Americentric.

Regarding the missing topics mentioned in the article (updated to quote them for convenience):

    The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump.
For example, the September 11 attacks on the US Embassy in Benghazi objectively happened - few people on the left or right would pretend they did not happen or that were not notable events of Barack Obama’s presidency (as the article discusses).

This is not a matter of whether you watch Fox News or not.

Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

#28

[flagged]

Talking about our march into fascism is still considered off topic here apparently. Isn’t that exactly the sort of topic a supposed forum of hackers ought to be discussing however?

This forum, in spite of the name, was never about the older hacker ethos that began way back when. It was founded by a VC and was called "Startup News" at first, only changing its name six months later. It was created by the wealthy, for those who wanted to get wealthy (and make it's founder wealthier in the process). It co-opted "hacker".

Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

#29
post #7
post #2

Well seems the war on truth has started. There is a 1984 quote about history that escapes me now.

[flagged]

His argument is that Trump is being criticized more for being controversial than Obama.

Honestly. Is Trump not more controversial than Obama?

Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

#30
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, as described in the blog post, I would imagine the median Fox News viewer to find Wikipedia biased. But the median Fox News viewer is not the median American, much less median world citizen. But no seriously, having finished reading it, this article is incredibly Christian-centric and Americentric.

Regarding the missing topics mentioned in the article (updated to quote them for convenience): The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in survei…

Oh look!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

They creatively censored it under the title “2012 Banghazi Attack”

Post reply on HN