Bad bot.

It has been public for a long time that they have access to your contacts and metadata (who you talk to, how much, when, from where, etc.) That was bad enough. But this is the first time I’ve heard about accessing message content. Really chilling.

Why does evey MEE article include the phrase “according to [insert terrorist organization],” and then presents the information completely uncritically?

Funny that the surveillance state suddenly forgets to surveil when it is the one under the spotlight.

Loops is actually pretty great.

This is truly horrifying. Even more so that the world is watching it happen with precious little protest.

Sometimes I forget how brutal the early 2000s were.

Having a number of different editors allows manipulating the discussion and concensus protections built into Wikipedia.

Depending on the topic, it may not be necessary. A complimentary article about a new technology product or company founder just takes a few press releases that get picked up. Manipulating world events and leaders requires more coordination.

Although manipulating the sources cited is a great way to manipulate Wikipedia. You have to recruit 10-40 people to act as a group of editors to manufacture concensus across topics. Or you can just create a website or series of press releases.

“Hey, this small-town museum has an article about a historical event. It must be true. Link it at the bottom.” Or “well, this local newspaper article says it is happened, so into the article it goes.”

Even more effective, especially for political groups, is just publish dozens of supportive articles, while miring competing articles in edit wars and the bureaucracy that comes with it. For sources, just cite expert books that are favorable. It’s not easy, but hiring or recruiting 10-40 editors is trivial for political entities.

We honestly need to end the myth that Wikipedia is some impenetrable white tower. It can and has been infiltrated by corporate and political groups, and even creative vandals.

It’s the most valuable digital property in the world. You think people break into the Louvre but can’t touch Wikipedia?

I had the same reaction! I had to log into the screwy web portal and test it to realize it was something else entirely.

They literally will and are.

If they built out a Mastodon network with government support, then it would.

This has not been voted on to my knowledge. This article is just about the cosigners officially submitting the bill.

Uh, Mastodon exists?

So the people killing women for partially uncovering their hair are the good guys?

The people murdering thousands of protestors are the good guys?

So the religious fundamentalists imposing doctrine at gunpoint are the good guys?

I think the people protesting for their lives and freedoms are the good guys, but that’s just me.

Not exactly.

For context, a bill only needs one sponsor. Most bills have about 2 or 3 cosponsors. Signing a bill as a cosponsor is not the same as voting, which hasn’t happened yet.

Yes, thank goodness we saved Gaza by keeping those dems out of office.

Do you get that literally has nothing to do with what we are talking about here?

People don’t read them but I think that’s not usually the point. The people I know who have written them usually end up with boxes in their garage that they eventually give at to friends and family.

It’s still a nice accomplishment and a good personal growth thing.