Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
RT is not legit. It is Russian propaganda. When those people participated they were collaborators.
[deleted]
Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
221–230 of 1001 posts
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#222Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
We voted for this! This is “democracy” at work
[flagged]
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think actual election fraud, big enough to steal an election, would be too big to miss.
Yes, it might only take a small number of votes in the right place, but either you somehow know the right place, or you have to move a lot of votes.
There's a reasonable discussion to be had along the lines of 'these guys seem to be doing everything they whine about', but could they get a big operation done without a) bragging openly about it, b) leaving a big trail, or c) having a falling out with a conspirator who then tells all.
Adding on, certainly gerrymandering and voter supression laws affect voting results, but I have trouble calling that stealing an election.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
Revolutionaries tend to suffer from extreme naivete or arrogance. They don't understand that idealists like them usually get pushed aside or killed by the real crazies during the power vacuum stage, then the country becomes significantly worse. It's happened so many times in history. Until the US starts killing half of its population like Pol Pot did it can always get worse.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
We voted for this! This is “democracy” at work
[flagged]
I know that Harris put up zero fight about it. I infer that she believed it to be legitimate.
That's not definitive, to be sure. But it's sufficient for me to believe that we did this to ourselves. Now all we can do is figure out how we're going to get through it.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#226Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
We voted for this! This is “democracy” at work
[flagged]
Trump did thank that "very popular guy. He was very effective. And he knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers, those vote counting computers, and we won Pennsylvania in a landslide." If Biden or Obama had said something like that the nation would be in uproar.
https://www.youtube.com/live/kdvpXxXVyok?si=XALuK7No9-PLQBAr...
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#228> 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]
Except that's not coming from the top. Tens of millions of people wanted this.
Maybe this is indeed what Russia would do to us. But we're beating them to the punch by doing it to ourselves.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#229The English Wikipedia is a massive target for influence campaigns. I don't think there are any other communities as resilient as it. Just an example: There's certain individual or group that edited under the name "Icewhiz", was banned, and now operates endless sockpuppet accounts in the topic area to influence Wikipedia's coverage on the Middle East. One of them was an account named "Eostrix", that spent years making…
I knew IceWhiz. You are correct that he (or rather "they") eventually was kicked from the site. But he/they operated on the site for years and was the biggest PITA you can imagine. He must have single-handedly scared away two dozen honest contributors with his BS. It is very, very easy to game the rules on Wikipedia. Wars of attrition goes on for years. Normal people don't waste their time. IceWhiz and his meat puppe…
Right. The fact that someone so terrible got 99% approval and only one anonymous investigator was able to stop them makes me think that it's likely a lot of other terrible admins who didn't have an anonymous investigator go after them probably go through the process.
And the times I've brought up the fact that Wikipedia can be unreliable before, I've had numerous editors come in and claim that wasn't true and that people could rely on the claims they find in Wikipedia. This runs counter to the claim that Wikipedia editors know about these influence campaigns and openly fight about them. A lot of the active and vocal editors are openly dismissing such concerns.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#230Serious question, after the past few months, how can anyone deny that America is heading in a totalitarian direction? Those of you who believe that all of the many actions that have happened in the past few weeks are "okay", please explain your perspective without resorting to "whataboutism" or cherry picking only one or two of the things that have occurred lately. Because from what I'm sitting, this is not behavior…
[flagged]
I have no idea if that's true, maybe it is, but the parent specifically asked for a response without whataboutism.