The bad faith actors used to outnumber the good. That’s why Wikipedia’s reputation has never recovered, and they’ve never been able to beat the allegations. However, Wikipedia fixed what was wrong with their system of citing and verifying information contributed by others years ago. And X’s Community Notes system has a similar mechanism in place that has proven to be equally as effective and verifiable.

A valid argument, and a practice that should absolutely be encouraged in and of itself. When it comes to cancel Culture, and weaponizing hearsay and defamation to try to actively sabotage an entire company or a person without evidence or due process, that’s one thing I think has gotten out of hand. But the practice of voting with your wallet is your right, healthy for our economy and the businesses that contribute to it, and is not inherently predatory or antagonistic, unlike what Cancel Culture has become.

The anonymous fact-checking is the main thing PEOPLE took issue with. Like, oh I’m supposed to believe your anonymous fact-checkers know better than me or my trusted sources on what’s true/false, but you refuse to identify or provide the credentials of those fact-checkers, so their integrity and validity can be certified?

But it’s not the anonymous strangers arbitrarily sifting the wheat from the chaff willy nilly, and with no evidence to support their claims, that were the problem /s. , The problem was CLEARLY the people who took issue with an anonymous rando who has the power to declare a reputable source of info is lying, can not be disputed on that front (even in the many instances of them being wrong), and whose credentials can not be verified but is still supposed to be arbitrarily accepted as the supreme arbiter of reality and fiction.

Bought and paid for by a soulless corporation. I’ll take “extreme dought” for $500. I was more likely to believe in Santa Clause than an anonymous figure who had no credentials or checks and balances of any kind.

This is actually crazy, on the part of the UK police. I knew the UK government are more like that nosy old granny with binoculars than we have it in the States when it comes to stuff like Facebook and etc, but damn. I will allow that school shooting threats are serious, but in and of itself, actively trying to interrogate someone and demanding their SNS is a new level of invasive imo.

The presumption or admission of guilt does not and should not justify violating the Creative Commons License, nor perpetrating any illegal behavior agains any individual(s).

If JK Rowling went out and robbed a bank, or murdered an ex-Husband, in no world or timeline would that give a member of her publishing company the right to scratch out her name from any of her books and replace it with their own or someone else’s.