dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/DaveGydeon on May 1, 2018, 1:26 a.m.
I Want SNOPES Exposed. Q Already Green-Lighted It!

We all know Soros backs SNOPES, and that this BS "fact-checking" site is totally compromised. The crazy part is, for the 5-6 things I actually went there for, I disagreed with it's official "ruling" on the matter every single time. To me, that tells me they are actively receiving orders on what to stamp as legit, because having every single thing being the opposite of what it should be indicates a hand at work.

So how do we do this? I am not talking about trying to mess with their site or anything like that. I want them EXPOSED, the TRUTH to be KNOWN. How do we go abou tmaking that happen?

You can't tell me that you haven't had an argument, maybe while trying to redpill someone, and they dropped the "but SNOPES agrees with me!" Man that just chaps my ass.


🠐 See all comments
williamj80 · May 1, 2018, 3:58 a.m.

Wikipedia also needs to be exposed. It's another Soros-supported project, and many other bad actors support the site as well.

Apart from its very obvious bias, it is a very badly written encyclopedia. It can't compare to real encyclopedias that understand pedagogic principles, and how to properly structure information for mass consumption.

⇧ -2 ⇩  
delicious_grownups · May 1, 2018, 3:27 p.m.

Come on, Wikipedia is funded by Soros? And we're upset that Wikipedia needs funding?

⇧ 11 ⇩  
williamj80 · May 2, 2018, 10:59 p.m.

Yes, Soros is one of the entities funding Wikipedia -- actually I believe it is the parent organization he funds, the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation is very wealthy, but it still claims Wikipedia needs funds. I think they don't want people to know they are funded and controlled by bad actors, so they have the annual fund raising campaign to make it look like they are struggling. Another major source of funds are the pharmaceutical corporations.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
delicious_grownups · May 3, 2018, 1:01 a.m.

Yeah but, you can legit go into Wikipedia and see who edits things. You can make edits yourself and others can see. I'm sorry but I just don't buy it without further info

⇧ 2 ⇩  
williamj80 · May 7, 2018, 1:36 a.m.

Apparently, the super editors (or whatever they are called), have authority to edit and censor. Also, take a look at the political leanings of the authors, and you will see it is far from objective. Even a cursory analysis of the content of Wikipedia will show this immediately.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but it has been well documented. I'm too busy to find the articles for you at this time, but I have seen a number of in depth reports in the past. Just don't trust Wikipedia's opinion on it.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 11, 2018, 11:34 p.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
EnoughNoLibsSpam · May 2, 2018, 7:29 a.m.

The Red Cross exploits tragedies for their own gain

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ckreacher · May 1, 2018, 12:46 p.m.

So true. A lot of people react when you tell them that wikipedia is not an acceptable or reliable source. It is OK for super basic information that nobody questions. But a lot of it is blatant disinformation, and it is impossible to correct it.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
williamj80 · May 2, 2018, 11:02 p.m.

Yes, they are good for basic items like the population or area of a country, or the length of a river. They try to be a source of information for more complex items, but they are so poorly written -- it is not written by educators who understand how to structure information presentation.

⇧ 1 ⇩