I was largely referring to American groups or companies that get horribly slandered on wikipedia and have no recourse. Take Gab for example, where the second sentence of the wiki article is literally "The site has been widely described as a "safe haven"[9] for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10]"
Talk about slander about a website that just doesn't ban people for soeech.
I was largely referring to American groups or companies that get horribly slandered on wikipedia and have no recourse. Take Gab for example, where the second sentence of the wiki article is literally "The site has been widely described as a "safe haven"[9] for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10]"
Talk about slander about a website that just doesn't ban people for soeech.
Given that say the Christchurch shooter live streamed on Facebook for 17 minutes but FB had no repercussions but Gab and 8chan did, you gotta really seriously think about who is dictating what you see on the web. Why does Facebook's wikipedia page not say they are a haven for mass shooters live streaming murders?
Given that say the Christchurch shooter live streamed on Facebook for 17 minutes but FB had no repercussions but Gab and 8chan did, you gotta really seriously think about who is dictating what you see on the web. Why does Facebook's wikipedia page not say they are a haven for mass shooters live streaming murders?
Kind of, yeah. You're right, too, but Russia's freedom is more or less a meme at this point.