> Although many on the right, including Musk, have styled themselves as valiant defenders of free speech, their actions expose them as opposite: only willing to defend speech they find agreeable, while hostile towards and desperate to clamp down on criticism or opposing views.
It's 100% hypocrisy.
Moderation is the mark of a civil forum. I only peruse two, including HN. I have no time or attention to give to unchecked lies and hate speech.
Damn, I can't believe that after purchasing and consolidating every TV station, media network, and TikTok under republican control, they are suddenly threatened by Wikipedia.
I think there is some room for debate here about the political bias of wikipedia, and there is some evidence to suggest a left wing bias.
However this article is pretty venomous and the author doesn't even make an attempt at masking their disdain for the other side. It's not written in good faith.
I'd prefer if someone shared a more cool-headed article on the subject
Yeah, I do see where you're coming from. But just like with traditional media, Wikipedia as a "knowledge commons" maybe requires a slight left bias to guard against entrenched power and to raise awareness of marginalized perspectives.
As long as that's done in a way that protects knowledge integrity and relies on reliable sources and ethical review, I think I'm okay with that.
Also keep in mind that the age range of Wikipedia contributors skews much younger than the US population so yeah for boomers and the boomer-minded it's often gonna seem too progressive.
Instead of reading about him, try listening to him speak or reading what we writes. You might still not like him but at least it isn’t because someone told you to not like him.
While he was a bulshitter who pumped money out of investors, he looked like an interesting guy, a sort of engineering cowboy. But now his bullshit is directed on getting power, money is not enough for him, he needs a political influence. So, yes, it looks pretty ugly.
> Although many on the right, including Musk, have styled themselves as valiant defenders of free speech, their actions expose them as opposite: only willing to defend speech they find agreeable, while hostile towards and desperate to clamp down on criticism or opposing views.
It's 100% hypocrisy.
Moderation is the mark of a civil forum. I only peruse two, including HN. I have no time or attention to give to unchecked lies and hate speech.