←back to thread

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

(www.washingtonpost.com)
868 points coloneltcb | 3 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 #
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(12): >>43800169 #>>43800250 #>>43800437 #>>43800509 #>>43800785 #>>43800793 #>>43800878 #>>43800929 #>>43801035 #>>43807875 #>>43807902 #>>43807979 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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

replies(2): >>43806438 #>>43806797 #
1. cyberax ◴[26 Apr 25 19:35 UTC] No.43806438[source]▶
The problem is that all the additional requirements _always_ result in targeting Democratic voters. Always.

For example, voting by mail is bad. Unless you are a senior (and thus more likely to vote Republican).

And it doesn't take much to change the outcome of many elections. Just a 0.1% shift is often enough to flip the result.

replies(1): >>43806631 #
2. sgc ◴[26 Apr 25 20:02 UTC] No.43806631[source]▶
So the fight needs to be to make things universal and fair, not to do away with everything. I agree there are many attempts to throw elections in the US, but I also think unreasonable resistance to measures that make a lot of sense on many levels would have far better results if it was spent making sure things were implemented correctly.

I think a lot of people see all-out resistance as extremist and somewhat irrational, and so you are losing people's good will. I do see it that way, I am sympathetic as to what leads to it and don't let it count against those pushing for 'no new rules' even if I find it immature / poorly thought out - but at the same time I don't think most people think it through and are as understanding as I try to be.

replies(1): >>43807104 #
3. cyberax ◴[26 Apr 25 20:52 UTC] No.43807104[source]▶
> So the fight needs to be to make things universal and fair, not to do away with everything.

Like, automatic voter registration on license renewal? Nope. Denied if you're in a Republican state.

> I think a lot of people see all-out resistance as extremist and somewhat irrational

That's more restrictions _will_ be used to entrench Republicans even more. That's the simple reason for resistance.

And yes, the media does a poor job explaining this.