▲ | Tycho 14 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
I recall right-leaning social media sites like Gab, Parler, r/TheDonald, Infowars being taken offline. I can’t read the WP article because it’s paywalled, however I have been suspicious of Wikimedia for a long time. I used to donate to them thinking I was helping to keep the severs running, then being alarmed to find the money was going on all sorts of nonsense. The former CEO (Maher) was blatantly a political/intelligence operator. Fits the pattern of the establishment/powers-that-be abusing the NGO/non-profit sector to illicitly further their aims, so I’m not surprised the new DoJ are looking into them. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | kashunstva 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> I recall right-leaning social media sites like Gab, Parler, r/TheDonald, Infowars being taken offline. Were these not the actions of private entities rather than official government acts? | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
▲ | acdha 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Those sites weren’t taken offline by Democratic officials, they had to find new hosting after breaking the contracts they entered into with private companies. They were still free to move elsewhere, as they did, whereas in this case Wikipedia is being threatened with penalties for remaining in the country. I would also note that the last straw for companies like Parler was involvement in a violent attempt to overthrow the government whereas in this case the objection appears to be constitutionally-protected speech. Again, those are nowhere near comparable situations. Where is something like, say, going after a right-wing non-profit because they published content which criticized Biden? | |||||||||||||||||
|