If by "that account" (???) you mean the charity investigating right wing extremism in the USA then sure but I think that's a pretty sad response all in all.
> I’ll trust my eyes over what’s written in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia editors generally exhibit honest behaviour that your preferred propaganda outlet handler Chaya Raichik conspicuously lacks. The authors of the wiki page haven't sicced an online mob on anyone, I'd count them fairly trustworthy by comparison.
If you'd truly like to use your eyes I suggest the gigantic multi-paragraph list of abusive behaviour on behalf of Libsoftiktok, all replete with citations for proof so you can be certain it's the truth.
Righteous anger is a very dangerous human emotion, these accounts exist to exploit that part of you. I think anyone who makes it their business model to tell you who you should feel angry about should be treated with utmost suspicion.
> Wikipedia editors generally exhibit honest behaviour
Oh, shut up. Even the co-founder of wikipedia Larry Sanger no longer trusts wikipedia because its staff and biases are so far skewed to the left that he can no longer trust it. You are in a cult if you honestly think this kind of disingenuous editing is trustworthy.
It isn't totally shocking that someone who's made it their life's work to repeatedly try (and then fail) to replace Wikipedia would be sour about Wikipedia. I also don't as a matter of course trust the opinions of people who appear on Fox News, a network specifically for propaganda dissemination who admitted in court they do not aim to tell the truth.
That he's appearing on Timcast, hosted by yet another right wing propagandist agitator, does not shock me. It does mean I won't believe a word he says.
If you'd like to substantiate that feel free. I've provided plenty of evidence, GP has dismissed both replies without supplying any refutation.
Further, if you're unhappy about the points I'm making then explain why you think I'm wrong. Sniping at me from two different comment threads with out of hand accusations isn't doing you any favours.
> I’ll trust my eyes over what’s written in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia editors generally exhibit honest behaviour that your preferred propaganda outlet handler Chaya Raichik conspicuously lacks. The authors of the wiki page haven't sicced an online mob on anyone, I'd count them fairly trustworthy by comparison.
If you'd truly like to use your eyes I suggest the gigantic multi-paragraph list of abusive behaviour on behalf of Libsoftiktok, all replete with citations for proof so you can be certain it's the truth.
Righteous anger is a very dangerous human emotion, these accounts exist to exploit that part of you. I think anyone who makes it their business model to tell you who you should feel angry about should be treated with utmost suspicion.