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

Re:Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. atto... by kristopolous on Saturday April 26, 2025 @04:48PM (#43807073)

Mostly I'm sensitive to the classic technique of scapegoating an external enemy as the source of failure for a poorly done internal policy.

Whether it's Jews, Russians, Communists, leftists, the Chinese, immigrants, it's always some infiltrating evildoer and not the failure of policy.

It's purely ideologically driven because these accusers think their thing being sabotaged, whether it's an economic policy, a candidate, whatever, is so obviously superior that only some secretive cackling outsider could be to blame for the disparity of the results

Whether it's Clinton in 2016 or Trump in 2020 there's an elaborate conspiracy to explain it. Any excuse to avoid introspection.

If I am anything in life I am anti-bullshit. Nothing can move productively forward when based on nonsense.

So that's really the larger context here.

Being part of Jan 6 is a signal, being a repeated guest on an ideological show like Nick Fuentes, Russ Roberts, or Richard Wolff, these are signals.

Appearing on Rt? Not so much

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. atto... by asveikau on Sunday April 27, 2025 @12:31AM (#43809442)

I think this is a naive position that likely comes from lack of exposure to Russian propaganda. It doesn't take much to discover that RT is illegitimate.

I think people who haven't figured this out do get sucked into it without realizing what they are.

It's similar to Fox News, but I would say worse.

[ Parent | on HN ]