Maybe if they didn’t copy and paste the social media they’re allegedly fleeing from, with all of its dark patterns minus the ad networks, people would take this shithole seriously. They don’t because it just enforces a new form of groupthink which is still brainrotted by american idpol. I’m tired boss. I want to say slurs online without the thought police coming to get me. While also being a leftist. I’m contradictory like that, you see. Blinded by hate and so on and so forth. eating from the trash can of ideology. and I still want to call people retards when they’re being fucking retards; fight me.
If you need any evidence just read the other comments in this thread: everyone is virtue signaling that they’re on the good team, then they’re infighting to define what that team even is. In my book, it’s a bunch of retards. OP is also a retard for posting their room temperature IQ takes as an image instead of as text. Exactly the sort of brainlet takes that social media encourages.
Also just because you can use mspaint it doesn’t mean that your strawman comics are worth looking at. See? This is what I miss. Being an asshole online so that people can look at their own output and consider that maybe it does suck, and maybe they do need to put in more effort. That’s the sort of feedback that people can work on, because it directly attacks their ego. Oh well.








Wikipedia is and has always been shit. It’s where institutions go to write down their propaganda so it sounds authoritative. In fact it’s the precursor to AI in that sense. It’s credentialism all the way down. If something is said somewhere by anyone, then it becomes a source. Unless that source is not
approved ofinstalled by the powers that let wikipedia gracefully host its websites.If a page regarding a political or historical event isn’t under constant scrutiny, state actors and “trolls” will gradually alter it until it says nothing conclusive at all. Everything must be up in the air, everything must be “neutral” (when language itself is political…)
Also think about the incentives. You’re a government. You have people working full time to redact history. You CAN and you WILL threaten people who write the wrong version of history. This is not even hidden, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Wikipedia–U.S._government_conflicts
They can see it happening, they can document it happening, and they can’t do shit to change it because they’re not a peer to peer project. Like the fediverse for that matter, it’s all vulnerable to the same exact “a guy in a suit rang your doorbell because the server is on your premises” tactic.
So in conclusion, believing that “wikipedia good” and “AI bad” is an incredibly naive way to understand the world. Read up on Wittgenstein and Sapir-Whorf and tell me how this isn’t literally their theories being implemented.