CNN...
Owned by conservative billionaires who said their goal is to emulate Faux News...
Gee, why would conservative billionaires be against free and available information to the masses?
this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2025
4 points (100.0% liked)
General Discussion
12675 readers
23 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy.World General!
This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.
πͺ About Lemmy World
π§ Finding Communities
Feel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!
Also keep an eye on:
For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!
π¬ Additional Discussion Focused Communities:
- [email protected] - Note this is for more serious discussions.
- [email protected] - The opposite of the above, for more laidback chat!
- [email protected] - Into video games? Here's a place to discuss them!
- [email protected] - Watched a movie and wanna talk to others about it? Here's a place to do so!
- [email protected] - Want to talk politics apart from political news? Here's a community for that!
Rules and Policies
Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.
0. See: Rules for Users.
- No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: even with βsillyβ questions. The world wonβt be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
- Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
- Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
- No Ads/Spamming.
- No NSFW content.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Perfect sometimes is the enemy of good. At least the issues on Wikipedia are finally being taken seriously after years of neglect.
Gee, why would conservative billionaires be against free and available information to the masses?
This is a false dichotomy pigeonholing fallacy. Many critics do support Wikipedia as a concept, however they are pissed off by how toxic editors have captured the levers of power on Wikipedia and corrupted it. It's probably better for the knowledge market to consist of multiple platform instead of a single, suffocating monopoly, and there are already real efforts in addressing it, such as ibis.wiki.
Cory Doctorow's thesis on enshittification fits right in this case.
You understand that your links are saying Wikipedia is going to easy on Israel for their genocide against the native inhabitants of that land....
Right?
Like, that is what you're presenting as a long overdue thing...
Has that been the reason you hate Wikipedia this whole time, they're too honest about genocide?
Has that been the reason you hate Wikipedia this whole time, theyβre too honest about genocide?
With all due respect, the pro-Palestinian side has been griping about Wikipedia as well. You're clearly trying to pigeonhole people so that you can dismiss all the concerns that the so-called "magical platform" has a ton of issues after all.
Youβre clearly trying to pigeonhole people
You made a whole post celebrating media corporations owned by conservative billionaires supporting a genocide was not only a good, but novel thing....
What are people supposed to think?
What are people supposed to think?
Stop thinking about Wikipedia as a "magical platform" and start thinking it as just another institution which are prone to human errors. It's because of Google that Wikipedia has become a suffocating monopoly which escaped consequences every time somebody wants to vibe check it, until now.
"suffocating monopoly" lol ok bootlicker. I'm take Wikipedia any day over your corporate propaganda garbage.
You would've said the same about Apple and so on if this was the late 2000s.
By the way, there should be a second Internet Archive because currently the original one is getting under siege from copyright lawsuits, and unlike the WMF they're running on budget money. In contrast to Wikipedia, I found the people there are kind and nice.
I'm sorry, but this is an extremely naive take with absolutely no nuance whatsoever.
You said no nuance? Now this is indeed no nuance as the so-called magical platform has hidden ableist biases against topics related to neurodivergent people as well.
Yeah, it's incredibly important that resources like Wikipedia remain neutral. I'm glad more people are paying attention to this now.
That's right. The other day I had shared a PDF document on this sub that is a court document, regarding serial harassment and stalking incidents done by some toxic editors against an academic on Hebrew Wikipedia. Unfortunately I had removed it with the help of a mod because the document, which is publicly hosted on Wikimedia Foundation's governance website, contains unredacted personal information.
The only anti-Jewish bias I've noticed on Wikipedia is that if someone is a Jew, it'll always be mentioned in the first paragraph of their "Early Life" section.
This is also partially true for any non-Christian, it seems that Christianity is assumed as a default, but that isn't applied universally (e.g. this applies to articles about Muslim or Hindi people often, but not always).
Conflating anti-Zionist (or, more often, factual reporting on Israel) material with antisemitic material is a very dangerous mistake not only for the people horribly affected by the Zionist ideology, but Jews as a whole too.
MSNBC and CNN literal garbage heaps that have slowly eroded what news is so that as they approach Fox levels of depraved billionaire bootlicking no one will notice.
Citing the ADL immediately loses you all credibility.
The ADL is fully composed of Semitic bias so they're not exactly more desirable if everyone's gonna throw around the B-word