Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by tsimionescu » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:43 AM UTC

ty6853 wrote: post #116

r053bud wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We voted for this! This is “democracy” at work

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.

Ah yes, the wonderful time of enlightenment when all straight white Christian land-owning men's rights became recognized, not just the nobility's. Just a few short centuries from there, the rights of poorer white men, children, women, people of any other skin color, non-Christian, and LGBT people would be recognized too.

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

#322

Post by hayst4ck » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:44 AM UTC

moshegramovsky wrote: post #171

hayst4ck wrote: post #84

Reason and truth are the enemy of authoritarian regimes. They want you to believe that truth is subjective. Truth and reason provide alternative legitimacy to authority. If nothing is true, there is no basis on which to judge those in power. There is a long legacy of authoritarian regimes attacking curious places, universities, historians, museums, books or any institution that grounds itself in reality which provide…

> Reason and truth are the enemy of authoritarian regimes. Truth and reason provide alternative legitimacy to authority. If nothing is true, there is no basis on which to judge those in power. Well said. Hannah Arendt wrote a great book about this, but it sounds like you might have already read it.

I haven't. I would imagine Timothy Snyder is an avid fan of, if not a major historian of, Hannah Arendt and I probably got that through Snyder. I had actually not heard of her specifically yet.

https://history.yale.edu/news/timothy-snyder-has-been-awarde...

Apparently Snyder received the Hannah Arendt Prize for Political Thought.

He quotes her here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/04/preparing-for-an...

After the Reichstag fire, political theorist Hannah Arendt wrote that “I was no longer of the opinion that one can simply be a bystander.” Courage does not mean not fearing, or not grieving. It does mean recognizing and resisting terror management right away, from the moment of the attack, precisely when it seems most difficult to do so.

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

#323

Post by sgc » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:45 AM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #247

rchaud wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That an enormous sample size. Statistically a complete participation should be very close, so the burden of proof lies with those who claim it would be different. Regardless of whether Trump would have won or not, that is a clear indication of evenly split public sentiment. So we still get to justly reap the fruits of our collective choices. There is no exoneration by whimsically dreaming of improbable alternatives.

I don't think it is was that hard to vote. That is a straw man to avoid facing the hard truth of American apathy. Now next election, perhaps we can have a conversation on that point. Things a trending rather poorly right now.

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

#324

Post by mpesce » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:47 AM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #188

candiddevmike wrote: post #139

Earlier 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.

We regularly have 92% - 93% participation in federal elections here in Australia. Having one next weekend, and already record numbers of pre-poll votes.

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

#325

Post by computerthings » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:47 AM UTC

kristopolous wrote: post #194

NelsonMinar wrote: post #148

Earlier 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]

[dead]

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

#326

Post by makeitdouble » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:48 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #274

makeitdouble wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy is not 2 parties doing voter suppression and gerrymandering as a filter to pass the result to an electoral college. The US system was never designed to be fair to individuals in the first place, pointing at it as a failure of democracy is IMHO pulling the actual issues under the rug.

It’s basically impossible to engage in meaningful voter suppression in a country where election results can be cross-checked against high-quality polling. “Gerrymandering” also has no effect on Presidential elections. And in 2024, Republicans won a larger share of the House popular vote than their share of House seats.

Voter suppression is the act of limiting the pool of voters. That includes putting large swaths of the population behind bars or flagged as non eligible to voting, putting barriers to voter registration etc.

It can never be 0 and every country will have a minimum requirement, but the degree to which it is done in the US is far ahead of most western country.

Gerrymandering has an effect on the criteria for voter eligibility, the voting rules in the state etc. It's not direct but who's in power has a sizeable effect on who will have an easier time voting.

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

#327

Post by KingOfCoders » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:50 AM UTC

candiddevmike wrote: post #139

r053bud wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We voted for this! This is “democracy” at work

Less than 30% of voter age Americans voted for this

Voters who do not vote say "I'm fine with all winners", like "What pizza do you want?" - "I'm fine with every pizza".

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

#328

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:55 AM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #188

candiddevmike wrote: post #139

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

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

#329

Post by Terr_ » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:55 AM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #227

Shekelphile wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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...

Also consider the circumstantial evidence of Musk illegally promising to pay people (via lottery) to vote, and then using the defense that the lottery was actually rigged.

If nothing else, that establishes a willingness to tamper with elections.

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

#330

Post by Perenti » Sat, Apr 26, 2025, 4:55 AM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #188

candiddevmike wrote: post #139

Earlier 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.

Everybody votes in Australia (not sure how rich, but in top 20 for sure). If you don't you have to show cause or pay a AUD$50 fine. I know some think this is anti-freedom, but it does prevent farces like the current USA. Historically there have been problems in the past (30 years ago) but these days the Australian Electoral Commission (Independent from government) revise electoral boundaries to ensure no more gerrymanders.