| ▲ | burnt-resistor 8 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Corporate editors, boiler room political operations, and random conspiracy cranks are given a bothsideism platform to edit and narrate facts in their favor. https://en.ejo.ch/public-relations/manipulation-wikipedia https://imemc.org/article/59294/ https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2026-01-14/lon... https://avim.org.tr/en/Analiz/THE-DARKNESS-BEYOND-WIKIPEDIA-... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/congress-opens-inves... https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.13990 https://www.isdglobal.org/isd-publications/identifying-sock-... https://www.city-journal.org/article/policing-wikipedia https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/oct/30... https://www.techdirt.com/2007/08/14/diebold-disney-many-othe... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | psunavy03 8 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Bothsidesism" is a tired argument. Somehow if you don't think that one side of a debate is utter evil and the other side is as pure as the driven snow, you're engaging in "bothsidesism" if you acknowledge there are any shades of gray in the world. Which is a childish argument for anyone older than a high school sophomore. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||