Why hasn’t Jack Dorsey been arrested for lying under oath about Twitter’s censorship policies? – NaturalNews.com

submitted by EvilNick from naturalnews.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

Because this website is well-known for spreading disinformation (about legal problems that aren't legal problems):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News

[–]enefi 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

website is well-known for spreading disinformation

and a source is https://en.wikipedia.org? You realize that description fits wikipedia too (e.g. gamergate). Just checked the first linked article what were the basis for Google to ban the site, and its snopes, another politically biased entity. I stopped wasting my time at that point.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

So you want to argue about facts and science? That's what naturalnews.com is arguing against. Wikipedia and snopes merely note the facts about that side. You have no evidence of pollitical bias.

[–]adultmanhwa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

the most stupid argument we have. wikipedia is not just noting the facts they also construct the opinion. ever heard something like, even if the original writers of book trying to fix the fact and then got rejected by wikipedia?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yes, of course there are problems with a massive site like Wikipedia. The site is still usefeful because you can check the sources and corroborate those sources. It's ridiculous to note that someone had a problem with the site, thus the entire site is rubbish. It's also ridiculous to parrot the usual comments from right-wing social media, while not providing any evidence.

[–]adultmanhwa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

why you assume I deemed all wikipedia fact is rubbish? What I'm saying is their site is corrupted and not purely behave like academics do. That's not supposed to be happening. It might better to make wiki like a UN that controlled by big entity compared to only one in control.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But the main problem with Wikipedia is that a massive number of editors have control, with very little oversight. Thus if the IDF want to tell lies about Palestine, their army of editors can continue to do so on Wikipedia, whereas relatively non-biased editors would have some difficulty controlling their narrative. "Free speech" in that case is easily manipulated by the powerful and wealthy because they are unregulated. A diverse, elected, ethics board should control the site.

[–]adultmanhwa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Every diversity dude might be 'god sent', or cheaper way to criticize/fixing this douche is using dissenter addons and as if give a comment on top of already existing comment on site.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I read this 4 times, and still don't understand it.

[–]adultmanhwa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ignore that, in short : I'm skeptics about 'elected' ethics board. It's either wikipedia controlled by national entity (different sovereign) or just make dissenter addons great again.