←back to thread

Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

(www.washingtonpost.com)
754 points coloneltcb | 7 comments | 25 Apr 25 23:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.495s | source | bottom
Show context
tzs ◴[26 Apr 25 00:00 UTC] No.43799641[source]▶
> Before being named U.S. attorney, Martin appeared on Russia-backed media networks more than 150 times, The Washington Post reported last week. In one appearance on RT in 2022, he said there was no evidence of military buildup on Ukraine’s boarders only nine days before Russia invaded the country. He further criticized U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia security concerns.

This is getting ridiculous. Is there anyone associated with this administration who does not have a record of promoting Russia's positions?

replies(5): >>43799655 #>>43799885 #>>43800099 #>>43800704 #>>43801144 #
r053bud ◴[26 Apr 25 00:43 UTC] No.43799885[source]▶
We voted for this! This is “democracy” at work
replies(10): >>43799926 #>>43800052 #>>43800056 #>>43800515 #>>43800646 #>>43801002 #>>43801436 #>>43801899 #>>43802403 #>>43802632 #
candiddevmike ◴[26 Apr 25 01:17 UTC] No.43800056[source]▶
Less than 30% of voter age Americans voted for this
replies(9): >>43800169 #>>43800250 #>>43800437 #>>43800509 #>>43800785 #>>43800793 #>>43800878 #>>43800929 #>>43801035 #
rchaud ◴[26 Apr 25 02:38 UTC] No.43800437[source]▶
The majority that did vote, voted for this. The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries. Given the standards of media literacy and civics education, there's no evidence that a higher participation rate would have changed the outcome.
replies(13): >>43800449 #>>43800539 #>>43800545 #>>43800641 #>>43800701 #>>43800849 #>>43800913 #>>43801020 #>>43801047 #>>43801050 #>>43801122 #>>43801344 #>>43801390 #
mulmen ◴[26 Apr 25 03:33 UTC] No.43800701[source]▶
There’s also no evidence that increased turnout would have had the same result.

What seems to be overlooked in these conversations is the skill with which American voters have been disenfranchised by partisan forces.

It’s easy to blame people for not voting if you ignore the real difficulties in actually casting a vote for many Americans.

replies(3): >>43800829 #>>43801013 #>>43802251 #
1. sgc ◴[26 Apr 25 04:45 UTC] No.43801013[source]▶
That an enormous sample size. Statistically a complete participation should be very close, so the burden of proof lies with those who claim it would be different. Regardless of whether Trump would have won or not, that is a clear indication of evenly split public sentiment. So we still get to justly reap the fruits of our collective choices. There is no exoneration by whimsically dreaming of improbable alternatives.

I don't think it is was that hard to vote. That is a straw man to avoid facing the hard truth of American apathy. Now next election, perhaps we can have a conversation on that point. Things a trending rather poorly right now.

replies(2): >>43801434 #>>43803788 #
2. ellen364 ◴[26 Apr 25 06:41 UTC] No.43801434[source]▶
The electorate self-selected into voters and non-voters, it wasn't a random sample. Some chose to go to the polls and some chose to stay at home. Voter preferences don't say a lot about the preferences of non-voters, who've already shown they choose differently.
replies(2): >>43801467 #>>43804501 #
3. mulmen ◴[26 Apr 25 06:52 UTC] No.43801467[source]▶
There’s also one party that disproportionately targets specific voter demographics for suppression.
4. jzb ◴[26 Apr 25 14:11 UTC] No.43803788[source]▶
"I don't think it is that hard to vote"

Says a person commenting on HN that almost certainly isn't in a demographic that it has been made intentionally difficult to register, stay registered, and get time off an hourly job to stand in line for hours to vote.

replies(1): >>43804549 #
5. sgc ◴[26 Apr 25 15:34 UTC] No.43804501[source]▶
It shouldn't be that hard for you to show some evidence things would be different then. There is nothing indicating a stronger preference to vote has anything at all to do with which direction you lean. More and less does not equal right and left, so the burden of proof is on those who claim it is relevant. Yet polling indicates things would have gone pretty much just as they went.
replies(1): >>43805646 #
6. sgc ◴[26 Apr 25 15:40 UTC] No.43804549[source]▶
I did not say 'is', I said 'was'. I have not seen studies or even many anecdotal stories indicating people think it was too hard for they themselves to vote. I have seen a lot of people saying that about other people, but as of 2024, attempts to disenfranchise voters had not been very well done. I also don't think having ID is a high bar, which is what a large amount of the noise has been about. Many, many democratic countries have this requirement [1]. Coupled with other things it can become a problem, but when anybody says voter id itself is a problem, I can't take them very seriously.

I however repeat, that was last year. Things could very well take a dramatic turn for the worse.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_identification_laws

7. ellen364 ◴[26 Apr 25 17:48 UTC] No.43805646{3}[source]▶
I don't know if voters and non-voters have the same political leanings. It isn't something I've ever looked into. My observation was merely that measures of statical confidence assume random samples. Extrapolating from a non-random sample can give odd results. But this isn't a research paper, so it doesn't much matter.