this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2025
690 points (100.0% liked)
memes
15781 readers
3352 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Whoever made this needs to learn how speech bubbles work
It's in the style of a text/SMS chat where the bubbles pointing off to the side indicate which "side" of the conversation it applies to.
I'm aware I just don't like it 😏
[rips blunt] The dissonant design philosophies between the text and the image emphasize how technological progress guided by an uncaring market will gradually create greater psychological distance between people over time
The couple in the picture aren't the ones having the conversation. Each person talking is out of frame on either side and awkwardly talking past the couple we see.
Lmao I like this interpretation
I am going to answer here since you are reasonable unlike the others and I got banned by the mods.
Anything that Trump doesn't like must be automatically good in their kneejerk binary reaction.
And they will defend it dogmatically with all means possible and without scepticism.
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/11/meet-wikipedias-ayn-rand-loving-founder-and-wikimedia-foundations-regime-change-operative-ceo/
https://www.dw.com/en/attempted-manipulation-on-wikipedia/video-16628135 https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html
And you wonder about cherrypicking?
That was literally the entirety of your reply.
You cherrypick citogenesis of ten points to criticise.
If you really were 'open minded enough' you could find at least useful info in the other points.
Such as their links to Google trough sponsoring and partnerships.
Or:
*At time of writing, out of a total.of 5.72 million articles, Wikipedia has.....
~195,000 articles that need references (i.e. they have none)
~337,000 articles that need more references
~69,000 articles that need reliable references*
You could bother to look at other threads or other websites online.