Post A3py7kPsBnwSySGyoq by lbry@lbry.world
(DIR) More posts by lbry@lbry.world
(DIR) Post #A3jcRjftID9uWe8D0C by lbry@lbry.world
2021-01-29T16:12:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
We're going to end up on Wikipedia anyway. Do you want the article to be written by one of us, or one of them?Much love ♥️RT @katzdani@twitter.com@LBRYcom@twitter.com @TomZarebczan@twitter.com Given that you're a free speech platform, and they're a disinformation machine, you're a threat to Wikipedia's interests. You sure you want to play in that field?🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/katzdani/status/1355176400152522754
(DIR) Post #A3jcVxuqHonJqt8qgK by chiraag@mastodon.online
2021-01-29T16:12:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lbry how exactly is Wikipedia a "disinformation machine" again?
(DIR) Post #A3lH2tlmuehVsG7oWm by zwerg12@social.librem.one
2021-01-30T11:21:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lbry Free speech isn't everything. Wikipedia should not be based on opinion or "free speech". It is based on facts and if someone thinks Wikipedia is wrong I am 99.9% sure Wikipedia is correct and you are wrong. Furthermore nobody who ever said Wikipedia is wrong showed me one single example... So stop bashing Wikipedia. Say where Wikipedia is wrong in a concrete example or leave it!
(DIR) Post #A3lHJYpk0SeZrev3bc by INSTALLGENTOO@freespeechextremist.com
2021-01-30T11:24:31.799349Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zwerg12 @lbry Not sure if serious or sarcastic.
(DIR) Post #A3lKM4NryPAE9rlprc by zwerg12@social.librem.one
2021-01-30T11:59:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@INSTALLGENTOO @lbry My answer is 100% serious. Wikipedia is not error free but and not ideal to dig deep into a topic but it has nothing to do with "disinformation"!
(DIR) Post #A3lSpNUinbZhSYSgkq by INSTALLGENTOO@freespeechextremist.com
2021-01-30T13:33:32.123993Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zwerg12 @lbry Wikipedia is not factual. It is disinformation and the Wikimedia founders literally hold conferences about how to do propaganda and mislead people. Specifically Katherine Maher, "Hayden, the former US spy agency chief, then blamed “the Russians” for waging that information war. He referred to Moscow as “the adversary,” and claimed the “Russian information bubble, information dominance machine, created so much confusion.”Maher laughed in approval, disputing nothing that Hayden said. In the same discussion, Maher also threw WikiLeaks (which is blacklisted on Wikipedia) under the bus, affirming, “Not WikiLeaks, I want to be clear, we’re not the same organization.” The former CIA director next to her chuckled.""Today, Maher is a member of the advisory board of the US government’s technology regime-change arm the Open Technology Fund (OPT) – a fact she proudly boasts on her LinkedIn profile.The OPT was created in 2012 as a project of Radio Free Asia, an information warfare vehicle that the New York Times once described as a “worldwide propaganda network built by the CIA.”Since disaffiliating from this CIA cutout in 2019, the OPT is now bankrolled by the US Agency for Global Media, the government’s propaganda arm, formerly known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors."
(DIR) Post #A3lWvzmFmFMbkI4ajA by zwerg12@social.librem.one
2021-01-30T14:19:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@INSTALLGENTOO @lbry You are exactly the person I am talking about: "Furthermore nobody who ever said Wikipedia is wrong showed me one single example..." [My first post]You are talking about a completely different topic. Show me an article that is wrong and don't talk about something else. Who cares about the founder... That is not Wikipedia... Wikipedia is a Website nothing else. Show me an article that is wrong!
(DIR) Post #A3lXDRs0a8s9nT5Suu by INSTALLGENTOO@freespeechextremist.com
2021-01-30T14:22:42.340670Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zwerg12 @lbry Powerful interests, from states to companies, hire Wikipedia editors to sanitize entries about themselves.http://whitehatwiki.com/https://thinkprogress.org/koch-industries-employs-pr-firm-to-airbrush-wikipedia-gets-banned-for-unethical-sock-puppets-6570bbd615bd/
(DIR) Post #A3lXaD1hw61SQ9TdQm by INSTALLGENTOO@freespeechextremist.com
2021-01-30T14:26:49.147513Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zwerg12 @lbry https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technology/19iht-wiki.1.7167084.htmlhttps://www.thecanary.co/discovery/analysis-discovery/2018/05/23/the-philip-cross-scandal-how-wikipedia-is-being-used-against-left-wing-journalists/
(DIR) Post #A3nIu7JLmlRnURgSTg by zwerg12@social.librem.one
2021-01-31T10:52:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@INSTALLGENTOO @lbry You want to say that Wikipedia is not secure against manipulation of there articles? Nothing is secure against this. Not even books or EVERYTHING else. Most of the manipulations mentioned in the articles are already corrected and this is only related to articles about single persons. This has nothing to do with scientific articles. This doesn't make Wikipedia a "disinformation machine". Simply check the references. They exist for a reason!
(DIR) Post #A3njZBx6250MZ6WNbk by INSTALLGENTOO@freespeechextremist.com
2021-01-31T15:50:31.087692Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zwerg12 @lbry Many articles make claims without references yet do not get marked as "citation needed" And references to dubious articles tend to end up in a reference rabbit hole that just ends up to be a hearsay or a malicious claim or just a article referencing another that reference back to the same article. Like what this article says "Spotting bullshit in the wild it isn't something you have to let others do for you" https://www.callingbullshit.org/case_studies.htmlPlease don't rely on "science" to do the thinking for you. There are many cases where these academic journals suffer from a bad case of nepotism where they selectively ignore contrary evidence and argument when it is convenient or profitable (basically a ) https://www.badscience.net/2009/08/how-myths-are-made/You can look ate the history of "science" and see that people recommend cigarettes and other toxins to people that were healthy. The guy who was instrumental in showcasing the global rise of airborne lead in the atmosphere and source being leaded gasoline. He was labeled a quack the the ENTIRE Academia and this wasn't even 60 years ago. Academia has not change in structure a single bit since then and financial interests still rule the campus. This is why you Don't trust the institutions and go by "popular consensus" and "common knowledge". If you want to do critical thinking question everything. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-scientist-who-determined-age-earth-and-then-saved-it
(DIR) Post #A3nrM7HCu8VfvtCiJ6 by zwerg12@social.librem.one
2021-01-31T17:18:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@INSTALLGENTOO @lbry Then why do you trust the articles you sent me? Why do you think these are correct?
(DIR) Post #A3oV9Nk2NBfVOrAhns by INSTALLGENTOO@freespeechextremist.com
2021-02-01T00:43:41.679075Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zwerg12 @lbry That's quite a assumption. I don't trust it but I trust is more than I would Wikipedia in that it doesn't hide under a veil of "non-biased non-partisan fact based encyclopedia".
(DIR) Post #A3p7rEr4ZRIwq3nmdc by zwerg12@social.librem.one
2021-02-01T07:57:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@INSTALLGENTOO @lbry You don't trust these sources but your whole opinion is based on these articles? 😄 Come on stop typing one typical "question everything" phrase after another... Next time please try to sound at least a little bit less similar to all the other "question everything" persons... I feel like I am writing with a robot...
(DIR) Post #A3pjBMqYGRofih1HHs by INSTALLGENTOO@freespeechextremist.com
2021-02-01T14:55:38.098401Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zwerg12 @lbry Fine if you think you're writing to a robot. Keep reading wikipedia like its a bastion of truth you think it is.
(DIR) Post #A3pjU1o4iMIvy3l8Yi by INSTALLGENTOO@freespeechextremist.com
2021-02-01T14:59:00.454205Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@zwerg12 @lbry It's fine that you think that you're talking to a robot. Keep reading Wikipedia like it's a bastion of truth that you think it is. :0530:
(DIR) Post #A3py7kPsBnwSySGyoq by lbry@lbry.world
2021-02-01T17:43:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
https://twitter.com/LBRYcom/status/1356295836334960644