[flagged]
[flagged]
Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
51–60 of 1001 posts
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#52Well seems the war on truth has started. There is a 1984 quote about history that escapes me now.
[flagged]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#53[flagged]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#54In my humble opinion Wikipedia is the single best thing thing to emerge from the Internet boom. Its name is a wordplay on one of the most important intellectual projects of the Enlightment.[0] The DC prosecutor letter reads like something straight out of the totalitarian playbook.[1]
Please donate now to show your support. It's time to fight back against this crap.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die
[1] "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_giv...
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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.
It's not true that only one of the two is facing investigation. Multiple state AGs are investigating WinRed, and rightly so - there's substantial evidence that they're using dark patterns to trick people into recurring donations when they intended to donate only once. The controversy is that a political official is ordering an investigation of ActBlue, not that political fundraising platforms ought to be above scrutiny.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#56Here's the letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ocNyx34Et19sKtlta0bTPPzSPcp...
No claims, no evidence. No sources, except "it has come to my attention" and "information received by my office".
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#57Well seems the war on truth has started. There is a 1984 quote about history that escapes me now.
[flagged]
If you call something gender fluid you lose tax exempt status? Good to know.
I just feel that logically this doesn't make any sense. Having the view or even promoting the idea that a mythical creature is "gender fluid" isn't an overt political action. It doesn't help any political party or politician. There are numerous fully-compliant tax-exempt organizations that directly aid LGBTQIA+ individuals. How are these above board but having someone submit content to your organization that claims the Nure-onna might be genderfluid is crossing into the realm of politics by influencing election outcomes?
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#58The 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.
The US has not been a force for good in the world in some time, if ever. Unfortunately for Americans, it has to get worse before it can get better. Much worse. The institutions are deeply corrupt, and have been for decades. They must be destroyed and possibly replaced. It sucks, and it will hurt. It may even possibly require an entire revolution, as many of the deeply evil US institutions such as the CIA and FBI are…
> What comes after will be more transparent, more fair, and more integrated with society.
Can you walk me through how you see this playing out, step-by-step?
I want to believe!
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#59Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now imagine a sitting President personally saying 'the highest holders of my grift coin get a personal visit with me'. That would seem odd, wouldn't it?
[flagged]
Accusing others of whataboutism is a way to dodge the real point: if identical behavior is excused for allies but condemned for opponents, the outrage isn't about ethics it's about weaponized partisanship.
Edit in response: The broader conversation is about weaponizing government power against political opponents, ActBlue was just one example give in many being discussed. You narrowed to ActBlue to have something you felt you could condemn safely, while ignoring the larger pattern. That selective focus is the weaponization your argument is trying to distract from.
Edit: Stepping back and noting the pattern there is no need to go into specifics of ActBlue. Especially when this VERY administration is blatantly selling access with their shill coin. Your hyper focus is a weaponized distraction, a 'gotcha' from the larger discussion. The administration does not care about corruption in fundraising, they care about targeting their opposition and shutting down any influence they have via fundraising, via information/knowledge sharing on the web, via universities with students willing to challenge the status quo.