Here'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".
“Some people say.”
Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
71–80 of 1001 posts
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#72[flagged]
Churchs are tax exempt. Are they supposed to be neutral?
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#73[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?
I fully agree with you. Maybe I wrote it in a bad way. I do not like that these things that are objectively wrong for a functioning democracy are getting flagged because for some reason this got political connotations. I consider it dangerous and I do not understand why this is controversial at all.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#74[flagged]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#75> Before being named U.S. attorney, Martin appeared on Russia-backed media networks more than 150 times, The Washington Post reported last week. In one appearance on RT in 2022, he said there was no evidence of military buildup on Ukraine’s boarders only nine days before Russia invaded the country. He further criticized U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia security concerns. This is getting ridiculous.…
[flagged]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#76Well seems the war on truth has started. There is a 1984 quote about history that escapes me now.
Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#77It sounds weird. Why does it look like a conspiracy theory?
Yo dawg, I heard you like to appeal to conspiracy theory types...
Why would someone introduce lots of seemingly indiscernible edits into important articles, fully knowing that the edit history is available to anyone who wants to look?
It would make more sense to spread propaganda in a place that doesn't fully track it.
Unless the exposition of such tracking edits as an obvious smoking gun exists to be staged to look like someone else did it.
Of course, it could all be to trigger a recursive conspiracytheorypocallipse that further erodes any belief in community generated content.
What should we do, Master Anakin? There's too many of them conspiracies.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#78[flagged]
It's an account created to avoid doxxing myself. My Wikipedia username is easily linked to my main HN account. I still rarely make minor Wikipedia edits now and then, and don't want my account banned.
Anyone who's edited Wikipedia long enough will recognize the pattern of what I'm describing. It's not a misrepresentation.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that depends on your viewpoint. Those who come from a "democrat" background will certainly consider Trump to be more controversial than Obama while those from a Republican background will see Obama - especially second-term Obama - as far more controversial than Trump. Independents will vary on their interpretation but Obama is not likely to end up in the history books as the 'Change agent' he promised to be and w…
> partly responsible for the deterioration of race relations in the USA This is just a euphemism for "he was black in public and lesser white people didn't like it".
[flagged]