Earlier quoted context omitted.
RT is not legit. It is Russian propaganda. When those people participated they were collaborators.
[flagged]
[deleted]
Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
241–250 of 1001 posts
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re painting with an awfully broad brush, omitting both the magnitude of the difference and far overstating the homogeneity of one of those sides.
[flagged]
You’re not arguing in good faith if you’re not recognizing that the “pandemic authoritarianism” started under Trump, or asserting that the lab leak theory was ever suppressed (it was continuously discussed throughout - just check the comments here for the last 5 years!) or that the most criticized theories making wild claims about bioweapons or gain of function research are now widely accepted. Many assessments have included the possibility of a lab leak of a natural specimen from the beginning, but in the absence of evidence nobody credible is saying more than, say, the CIA’s “low confidence” back in January.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
Martin was also at the coup attempt on Jan 6 and on that day said "Like Mardi Gras in DC today: love, faith and joy. Ignore #FakeNews". https://archive.ph/jekzQ
[flagged]
Ed Martin made 198 TV appearances on RT in 2023 and 2024.
How many RT TV hits did Larry King do? How recently did King appear on RT?
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#244I am going to say a thing I say a lot: please edit Wikipedia. It is easier to do than you probably think! Wikipedia's biggest constraint is no longer money or server space, it's editor time (especially since LLM-based garbage is a force multiplier on disruptive editing that does not have a corresponding improvement to good-faith editing). Any topic area you know about and/or care about can benefit from your attention…
I have in the past, but three things put me off doing so now; Pages where I can spot inconsistencies are often controversial, with long dense discussion pages, edits here are almost impossible beyond trivial details. I dont mind fixing trivia, but not if the actual improvement I think I can make is rejected. There is a bit of a deletionist crusade to keep some topics small, for example, Ive had interesting trivia abo…
It really feels that way because that's what they're doing. There's a legit non-profit internet encyclopedia barnacled with a bunch of generic left wing political stuff, except the barnacle is bigger than the boat.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean yes? Democracy is a pretty poor model for governance. IMO peak enlightenment happened circa the 17th or 18th century when classical liberalism decided government should be based on individual liberties and anything outside of that is decided democratically not because it is a good system but because votes are roughly a tally of who would win if we all pull knives on each other because we didn't like the vote.
How can someone talk about democracy peaking when the franchise was extended to a tiny minority of the population. You don't give a damn about individual liberties, you only care that the "right" people have liberty.
That poster is specifically arguing against democracy
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#246I am going to say a thing I say a lot: please edit Wikipedia. It is easier to do than you probably think! Wikipedia's biggest constraint is no longer money or server space, it's editor time (especially since LLM-based garbage is a force multiplier on disruptive editing that does not have a corresponding improvement to good-faith editing). Any topic area you know about and/or care about can benefit from your attention…
Why is their editor so awful to use?
[deleted]
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
Less than 30% of voter age Americans voted for this
The majority that did vote, voted for this. The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries. Given the standards of media literacy and civics education, there's no evidence that a higher participation rate would have changed the outcome.
There’s also no evidence that increased turnout would have had the same result.
What seems to be overlooked in these conversations is the skill with which American voters have been disenfranchised by partisan forces.
It’s easy to blame people for not voting if you ignore the real difficulties in actually casting a vote for many Americans.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#248> 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
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
Martin was also at the coup attempt on Jan 6 and on that day said "Like Mardi Gras in DC today: love, faith and joy. Ignore #FakeNews". https://archive.ph/jekzQ
[flagged]
> Not defending it, but just saying that being on RT doesn't necessarily imply anything.
I'm not sure who's claiming that here. The RT appearance in question is about him spreading disinformation and Russian propaganda on the eve of Ukraine invasion.
Re: Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney
#250[flagged]