←back to thread

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

(www.washingtonpost.com)
760 points coloneltcb | 4 comments | 25 Apr 25 23:03 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
NelsonMinar ◴[26 Apr 25 01:25 UTC] No.43800099[source]▶
Martin was also at the coup attempt on Jan 6 and on that day said "Like Mardi Gras in DC today: love, faith and joy. Ignore #FakeNews". https://archive.ph/jekzQ
replies(1): >>43800455 #
kristopolous[dead post] ◴[26 Apr 25 02:43 UTC] No.43800455[source]▶
[flagged]
NelsonMinar ◴[26 Apr 25 02:52 UTC] No.43800483{3}[source]▶
RT is not legit. It is Russian propaganda. When those people participated they were collaborators.
replies(4): >>43800564 #>>43800566 #>>43801307 #>>43801584 #
roenxi ◴[26 Apr 25 06:02 UTC] No.43801307{4}[source]▶
Ex-CIA head Brennan famously remarked in an MSNBC interview [0] that when he says something is a Russian information operation that includes dumping accurate information.

So really it isn't enough to identify something as Russian propaganda - it is necessary to analyse whether it is propaganda of the accurate and informative variety, or the inaccurate variety.

Propaganda really just means someone is arguing a viewpoint. The BBC is classic propaganda, but nonetheless a pretty reliable source of information and a lot of the views are very agreeable.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8Shx2AR_E4

replies(2): >>43801429 #>>43802236 #
1. chii ◴[26 Apr 25 06:39 UTC] No.43801429{5}[source]▶
> a lot of the views are very agreeable

That's why you don't "ignore" propaganda, but consume all, from all sides. Just consuming agreeable propaganda simply means it is working.

replies(1): >>43802501 #
2. exceptione ◴[26 Apr 25 10:54 UTC] No.43802501[source]▶
Nope, you shouldn't. Because propaganda is effective.

Humans are by default not influenced by logic, but rather respond on beliefs and emotions. This is one of the hardest thing to swallow for us people, we do see ourself as independent rational thinkers. We are sometimes able to, with effort.

To understand it better, you should know that Russian propaganda is not designed to instill a certain belief, but rather to make you not belief the truth. The Kremlin is happy to push different, conflicting stories. You end up with a society of nihilists.

replies(1): >>43802751 #
3. chii ◴[26 Apr 25 11:45 UTC] No.43802751[source]▶
> We are sometimes able to, with effort.

and i'm saying everyone should expend this effort, because otherwise, people and democracy gets taken over. It's one's civic duty to ensure that you are not making choices based on lies or manipulations.

replies(1): >>43803666 #
4. exceptione ◴[26 Apr 25 13:57 UTC] No.43803666{3}[source]▶
> and i'm saying everyone should expend this effort,

Agreed. But I would add that one shouldn't stick their head into stuff that is deliberately trying to steer you away from the truth and seeks to undermine your moral compass.

I think it would help people immensely if they first could filter their sources on intent and principles. The Guardian is a better source than the newspapers from North Korea.