@親衞隊 英文意思是盡量以大家熟識的字母作音素 例如也j,y 會選擇後者
在英文口語中將ing縮為in很是常見 而此處 也是輕聲沒明顯g音尾 因此視為非必要
本拼音選擇使用常見的單一英文音素 但會避免將英文的一字母多音帶進
n的設定便是要避免一字母多音
n-->[ng]
nl-->[ng]+[l] n代表有鼻音如前述
點睇維基「潛在唔可信來源」?點解有人會覺得佢係fake news、毒基,多數寫嘅都係所謂極左無業遊民?
-
喺維基社群共識之前,睇下反維基派嘅反對意見先:
- 毒基「百科」就係世界上最多fake news嘅集合地,多數寫嘅都係無業遊民,祇係極左嘅打飛機圍爐區
- 毒基係毫無準則,只係一大班人打壓持相反意見者,大量破壞,洗版,濫權
- 毒基嘅根本問題:所有文都必須係同毒基立場一致
- 今時今日仲吹奏通俄騙局嘅數一數二就係毒基,一班社會垃圾竟然可以負責改變歷史,仲得到極左Big Tech嘅吹奏同配合
- 毒基講毒苗嘅主題,同猿國勇,虫南山呢啲茂利講嘅一模一樣,完全同事實不符,徹底隱瞞副作用。
- 佢哋承認冇人應該當佢哋維基所謂「百科」做primary source,但Big Tech不斷將佢哋嘅左派文宣當成絕對證實咗,無容置疑嘅事實咁包裝,放喺search results 嘅首位。
- 支那手蓄基本上完全控制中文毒基
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Commonist ,用Commonist公開支持共產主義
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources (Wikiless)
News media
All mainstream news media can make mistakes. Particularly with breaking news, corrections will need to be made and should be watched out for, and much tabloid journalism (Wikiless) will be sensationalist and gossip-driven. Fact checking has reduced generally in the news media over recent years. For more on the trend of churnalism (Wikiless), see Flat Earth News, a book by Nick Davies (Wikiless). Specific examples to treat carefully include:
- State-associated or state-controlled news organisations, especially state media (Wikiless) in countries with low press freedom (Wikiless), such as the Chinese press agency Xinhua (Wikiless), the North Korean Korean Central News Agency (Wikiless) and Press TV (Wikiless) in Iran. They may be propaganda organisations (Wikiless). RT (Wikiless), formerly known as Russia Today, and other Russian government-funded sources like Sputnik News (Wikiless) have also been described as propaganda outlets for the government. However, such sources may be reliable for determining the official positions of their sponsoring governments. Similarly, Voice of America (Wikiless), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (Wikiless) and other US state media sources may also be unreliable as to facts, as they have been described as propaganda, but may be reliable regarding the official position of the United States.
- TMZ (Wikiless) - has received criticism for errors in breaking news and has a reputation for gossip, but it is increasingly seen as credible by other news agencies (1 (Wikiless), 2 (Wikiless), 3 (Wikiless))
- The more extreme tabloids such as the National Enquirer (Wikiless) should never be used, as most stories in them are intentional hoaxes.
- In general, tabloid newspapers (Wikiless), such as The Sun (Wikiless), Daily Mirror (Wikiless), the Daily Mail (Wikiless) (see also the February 2017 RFC (Wikiless) discussing its validity), equivalent television shows, should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims. The Daily Express (Wikiless) and Sunday Express (Wikiless) should be treated with even greater caution.
- Forbes.com (Wikiless) - although a branch of the Forbes magazine (Wikiless), its website also contains articles by paid "contributors"—similar to a content farm (see below). However, in contrast to sites like Examiner.com, its authors are professionally vetted and, in most cases, may have credentials that allow the specific author to qualify under the self-published source criteria (established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but must never be used as third-party citations on statements relating to living persons).
- The articles on PR Newswire (Wikiless) and VerticalNews are entirely corporate press releases (Wikiless). Other online sources of news rely on such sources for their own articles - even CNN Money (Wikiless) and Yahoo! Finance (Wikiless) have published some very implausible corporate press release material without telling readers they used text from a site which publishes companies' press releases almost word for word. Any article citing PR Newswire (Wikiless), VerticalNews or similar online business news sources should be considered a primary (Wikiless) source unless there is evidence - not in the byline but the body of the article - of independent authorship and editorial review in the article you're citing. Searching the subject of the article you're citing may turn up identically or almost identically-worded articles elsewhere and at that point it's evident that the text of a primary source is being reproduced in the article(s) you're looking at. See WP:RS (Wikiless) for when it's good to use primary sources and independent secondary sources (Wikiless).
- Conspiracist (Wikiless) sites such as Infowars.com (Wikiless).
- Breitbart.com (Wikiless), which has a long and documented history of publishing misrepresentations, fabrications, half-truths and outright lies about people it politically opposes. See the site's article for examples and see the September 2018 RFC (Wikiless) that deprecated its use as a reference for facts. May be useful for discussing opinions, but should never be used to support negative claims about people.
Science churnalism sites
Churnalism (Wikiless) is the practice of lightly repackaging press releases and republishing them. These sources are WP:SPS (Wikiless) and not independent (Wikiless):
Stock chasing blogs
These are blogs that are opinion-driven and subject to all kinds of external interests and speculation (Wikiless). Not what we should be reaching for, with our mission to provide the public with articles summarizing accepted knowledge.
Sites that may appear to be reliable sources for Wikipedia, but are not
- Content farms (Wikiless) - these include sites such as Examiner.com (Wikiless) (not to be confused with the San Francisco Examiner (Wikiless)) and those owned by Demand Media (Wikiless). While they may resemble the format used by legitimate websites (especially in the case of the former), the content is by amateur writers paid by page views and other factors, and are effectively self-published, user-generated content (Wikiless) that lacks editorial oversight. (see 1 (Wikiless), 2 (Wikiless), 3 (Wikiless))
- Articlesnatch.com
- The Onion (Wikiless) - In a few high-profile incidents, major news services have reported on content from this satirical news site, mistaking it for real news.
- The Daily Currant (Wikiless) - Satirical news originating on this site mistakenly ended up on a few US news sites.
- The Lapine (Wikiless) - a satirical news site in Canada
- Newslo.com (Wikiless) and Politicalo.com - satirical articles based on actual events that provide a button readers can use to highlight the portions of an article that are real
- American College of Pediatricians (Wikiless) - publishes from an unscientific viewpoint
- Other sites on the List of satirical news websites (Wikiless)
係咁「推薦保護私隱」
-
毒基「百科」就係世界上最多fake news嘅集合地,多數寫嘅都係無業遊民,祇係極左嘅打飛機圍爐區
-
今時今日仲吹奏通俄騙局嘅數一數二就係毒基,一班社會垃圾竟然可以負責改變歷史,仲得到極左Big Tech嘅吹奏同配合。
雖然我對呢個犯罪集團非常反感,但不得不承認,佢哋其實係比1984所寫嘅更犀利。1984 嘅政府俾錢人改變歷史,佢哋都知道自己係改變緊歷史;相反,通過Big Tech, Big Media同毒基,大量嘅人被錯誤歷史誤導,甚至連竄改歷史嘅人都覺得自己先係真正嘅歷史,其他人全部係fake news,係極右,係害人不淺嘅納粹份子。
事實上,連維基嘅創辦人都覺得Wikipedia冇執行自己嘅中立原則。佢哋只容下親建制嘅聲音,其他嘅聲音就要打壓,禁聲,而你所講嘅「潛在唔可信」清單就係最新例子。連盲撐疫苗嘅Daily Mail都ban
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." - George Orwell
"Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it." - Winston Churchill
-
維基戰線手足都係fake news
https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hk/反對逃犯條例修訂草案運動 (Wikiless)清洗親中管理員都係fake news
-
@親衞隊 喺 點睇維基「潛在唔可信來源」? 入面講:
維基戰線手足都係fake news
https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hk/反對逃犯條例修訂草案運動 (Wikiless)清洗親中管理員都係fake news
你所指嘅例子更加顯得毒基係毫無準則,只係一大班人打壓持相反意見者,大量破壞,洗版,濫權。
Ban 得8個濫權嘅管理員完全唔會解決毒基嘅根本問題:所有文都必須係同毒基立場一致。
-
作為新加入的成員經濟體,中國承諾迅速降低進口關稅及大幅開放市場。雖然許多美國貿易官員當時對中國會否兌現承諾存疑,中國確實大幅降低關稅。美國媒體繼而將矛頭指向美國企業進入中國市場持續被竊取智慧財產權及被逼技術轉移,認為中國涉嫌違反世貿貿易規則。須留意,中國從上世紀九十年代約百分之四十的平均關稅額,降低至2005年的百分之十。僅僅在2005年度,中國出口到美國的貿易量上升31%,而從美國進口的貿易量只上升16%。而同時美國對中國的貿易逆差由2001年的902億美元(即2019年價值1300億美元),至2005年額度近乎翻一翻。而中國於加入世貿後的四年間,整體上符合組織的多項法律要求,包括國內通過立法及未有超出有關期限。
毒基手足底褲好黃
指鹿為馬,顛倒是非,話美國無端白事抹黑中國,打美中貿易戰 -
@親衞隊 喺 點睇維基「潛在唔可信來源」? 入面講:
Voice of America and other US state media sources may also be unreliable as to facts, as they have been described as propaganda, but may be reliable regarding the official position of the United States.
如果你話係Deep State Media就真
但毒基話Deep State唔存在 -
中美貿易戰
https://wikiless.org/zh-hk/中美贸易战毒基手足底褲好黃
指鹿為馬,顛倒是非,話美國無端白事抹黑中國,打美中貿易戰我今日先知有人叫親中維基人做「維基戰線手足」,
係咪因爲覺得同一維基條目都係同一派系嘅人寫嘅?
-
推,更新反維基派意見
-
而你所講嘅「潛在唔可信」清單就係最新例子。連盲撐疫苗嘅Daily Mail都ban
成個list都冇提疫苗
-
@親衞隊 喺 點睇維基「潛在唔可信來源」?點解有人會覺得佢係fake news、毒基,多數寫嘅都係所謂極左無業遊民? 入面講:
中美貿易戰
https://wikiless.org/zh-hk/中美贸易战毒基手足底褲好黃
指鹿為馬,顛倒是非,話美國無端白事抹黑中國,打美中貿易戰我今日先知有人叫親中維基人做「維基戰線手足」,
係咪因爲覺得同一維基條目都係同一派系嘅人寫嘅?
支那手蓄基本上完全控制中文毒基
-
@親衞隊 喺 點睇維基「潛在唔可信來源」?點解有人會覺得佢係fake news、毒基,多數寫嘅都係所謂極左無業遊民? 入面講:
而你所講嘅「潛在唔可信」清單就係最新例子。連盲撐疫苗嘅Daily Mail都ban
成個list都冇提疫苗
你自己睇吓毒基講毒苗嘅主題,同猿國勇,虫南山呢啲茂利講嘅一模一樣,完全同事實不符,徹底隱瞞副作用。
-
-
毒基咁講Forbes:
However, in contrast to sites like Examiner.com, its authors are professionally vetted
想問吓毒基editor有冇被professionally vetted?
事實上,佢哋承認冇人應該當佢哋維基所謂「百科」做primary source,但Big Tech不斷將佢哋嘅左派文宣當成絕對證實咗,無容置疑嘅事實咁包裝,放喺search results 嘅首位。
-
-
推,再補充反維基派觀點
-
@親衞隊 喺 點睇維基「潛在唔可信來源」?點解有人會覺得佢係fake news、毒基,多數寫嘅都係所謂極左無業遊民? 入面講:
支那手蓄基本上完全控制中文毒基
「完全控制」係指管理員入面支那人同親中人士比例去到幾多?
-
逐個起底分析?
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:用户列表/sysop (Wikiless)
- AT (Wikiless)
- Acepatrick (Wikiless)
- Alberth2 (Wikiless)
- Alexsh (Wikiless)
- Alltonight (Wikiless)
- Antigng (Wikiless)
- Antigng-bot2 (Wikiless)
- Aoke1989 (Wikiless)
- Aotfs2013 (Wikiless)
- Bluedeck (Wikiless)
- BrockF5 (Wikiless)
- Cdip150 (Wikiless)
- Ch.Andrew (Wikiless)
- Chiefwei (Wikiless)
- Cp111 (Wikiless)
- Father vice (Wikiless)
- Ffaarr (Wikiless)
- Gakmo (Wikiless)
- Gzdavidwong (Wikiless)
- Hat600 (Wikiless)
- Htchien (Wikiless)
- Iokseng (Wikiless)
- Jasonzhuocn (Wikiless)
- Jimmy Xu (Wikiless)
- Jimmy-abot (Wikiless)
- Jusjih (Wikiless)
- KOKUYO (Wikiless)
- Kallgan (Wikiless)
- Kegns (Wikiless)
- Kevinhksouth (Wikiless)
- KirkLU (Wikiless)
- Koika (Wikiless)
- Kolyma (Wikiless)
- Kuailong (Wikiless)
- Kuon.Haku (Wikiless)
- Liangent (Wikiless)
- Minghong (Wikiless)
- Mongol (Wikiless)
- Munford (Wikiless)
- Mys 721tx (Wikiless)
- Nlu (Wikiless)
- Pedist (Wikiless)
- SElephant (Wikiless)
- Shinjiman (Wikiless)
- Shizhao (Wikiless)
- Subscriptshoe9 (Wikiless)
- Tigerzeng (Wikiless)
- Wcam (Wikiless)
- WhitePhosphorus (Wikiless)
- Wing (Wikiless)
- Wong128hk (Wikiless)
- Wright.one (Wikiless)
- Ws227 (Wikiless)
- Xiplus (Wikiless)
- Xiplus-abot (Wikiless)
- Yelets (Wikiless)
- Yhz1221 (Wikiless)
- Zy26 (Wikiless)
- 乌拉跨氪 (Wikiless)
- 唐戈 (Wikiless)
- 春卷柯南 (Wikiless)
- 武藏 (Wikiless)
- 淺藍雪 (Wikiless)
- 滥用过滤器 (Wikiless)
- 燃玉 (Wikiless)
-
@親衞隊 喺 點睇維基「潛在唔可信來源」?點解有人會覺得佢係fake news、毒基,多數寫嘅都係所謂極左無業遊民? 入面講:
@親衞隊 喺 點睇維基「潛在唔可信來源」?點解有人會覺得佢係fake news、毒基,多數寫嘅都係所謂極左無業遊民? 入面講:
支那手蓄基本上完全控制中文毒基
「完全控制」係指管理員入面支那人同親中人士比例去到幾多?
我覺得大部分。
-
先統計國籍
應該有少少錯
香港
- AT (Wikiless)
- Father vice (Wikiless)
- Gakmo (Wikiless)
- Kevinhksouth (Wikiless)
- Minghong (Wikiless)
- Pedist (Wikiless)
- Shinjiman (Wikiless)
- Wright.one (Wikiless)
- Ws227 (Wikiless)
- 春卷柯南 (Wikiless)
中國
- Acepatrick (Wikiless)
- Antigng (Wikiless)
- Antigng-bot2 (Wikiless)
- Aoke1989 (Wikiless)
- Chiefwei (Wikiless)
- Cp111 (Wikiless)
- Gzdavidwong (Wikiless)
- Hat600 (Wikiless)
- Jimmy Xu (Wikiless)
- Jimmy-abot (Wikiless)
- Kallgan (Wikiless)
- Kegns (Wikiless)
- KirkLU (Wikiless)
- Kuon.Haku (Wikiless)
- Liangent (Wikiless)
- Mongol (Wikiless)
- Munford (Wikiless)
- Mys 721tx (Wikiless)
- Nlu (Wikiless)
- Shizhao (Wikiless)
- Tigerzeng (Wikiless)
- Wcam (Wikiless)
- WhitePhosphorus (Wikiless)
- Wing (Wikiless)
- Yelets (Wikiless)
- Yhz1221 (Wikiless)
- Zy26 (Wikiless)
- 乌拉跨氪 (Wikiless)
- 唐戈 (Wikiless)
- 武藏 (Wikiless)
- 淺藍雪 (Wikiless)
- 燃玉 (Wikiless)
台灣
- Alberth2 (Wikiless)
- Alexsh (Wikiless)
- Alltonight (Wikiless)
- Bluedeck (Wikiless)
- BrockF5 (Wikiless)
- Ch.Andrew (Wikiless)
- Ffaarr (Wikiless)
- Htchien (Wikiless)
- Iokseng (Wikiless)
- Jasonzhuocn (Wikiless)
- Jusjih (Wikiless)
- KOKUYO (Wikiless)
- Koika (Wikiless)
- Kolyma (Wikiless)
- Kuailong (Wikiless)
- SElephant (Wikiless)
- Subscriptshoe9 (Wikiless)
- Xiplus (Wikiless)
- Xiplus-abot (Wikiless)
澳門
-
@親衞隊 好有心
-
-
新反維基理由
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Commonist ,用Commonist公開支持共產主義
-
-
其實你想知道點解毒基係嚴重左傾,睇吓英文版毒基點講保守派政治家嘅題目就知。實際上,大多數內容祇係民煮党嘅政治宣傳,通俄騙局而家連民煮党員都割蓆,唯獨毒基繼續聲稱Donald Trump係普京隻狗。
-
-
Critics – including Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger – tell Fox News that many Wikipedia pages have become merely left-wing advocacy essays. "The days of Wikipedia's robust commitment to neutrality are long gone," co-founder Larry Sanger said. "Wikipedia's ideological and religious bias is real and troubling, particularly in a resource that continues to be treated by many as an unbiased reference work," he added.
The two main pages for "Socialism" and "Communism" span a massive 28,000 words, and yet they contain no discussion of the genocides committed by socialist and communist regimes, in which tens of millions of people were murdered and starved.
"The omission of large-scale mass murder, slave labor, and man-made famines is negligent and deeply misleading," economics professor Bryan Caplan, who has studied the history of communism, told Fox News.
The pages include plenty of history, Caplan noted, and are not confined to just philosophical claims. But the history focuses on flattering claims.
Wikipedia’s Socialism page announces: "The Soviet era saw some of the most significant technological achievements of the 20th century."
It ignores a man-made famine in which Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin commandeered the food from regions like Ukraine and Kazakhstan, leaving millions to starve to death even as the Soviet Union exported grain to foreign countries.
The Wikipedia socialism page also mentions China’s Communist history, but only begins its description in 1976, after Mao Zedong’s reign of terror had already killed tens of millions.
"After Mao Zedong's death in 1976... China's economic performance pulled an estimated 150 million peasants out of poverty," the encyclopedia says.
The article fails to mention Mao’s prior communist programs such as his "Great Leap Forward", in which private farming was abolished, leading to mass famine that killed tens of millions.
It also neglects to mention Mao’s "Cultural Revolution", in which, according to the History Channel, "Millions of young radicals who formed the paramilitary Red Guards shut down schools, destroyed religious and cultural relics and killed intellectuals and party elites believed to be anti-revolutionaries."
Wikipedia does maintain less central sub-pages that contain facts such as those, as well as a page titled "Mass killings under communist regimes." But it gets no discussion on the main pages; merely a stray link at the very end under a "see also" heading.
The two main Socialism and Capitalism pages also fail to note any of the atrocities committed by other socialist and communist regimes, from Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Cambodia, or North Korea, among others.
Wikipedia bills itself as the "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." But experienced Wikipedians say new users will find they cannot simply fix things.
One prolific Wikipedia editor, Jonathan Weiss, told Fox News that "bias on Wikipedia somewhat reflects the bias in academia and journalism. It’s easier to find an open Marxist rather than a center-right conservative," he said.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed
-
Wikipedia had a beautiful information page on the 2008 Federal Budget complete with graphs, timelines, article links to the timeline mentions, treasury documents, etc. It clearly showed the budget pre-Obama and post Obama. I went back 3 years into Obama's administration and the whole thing was nearly wiped clean. The treasury department actual budget links got replaced with the projections they had at the beginning of 2009. All of the delineations between Bush and Obama got wiped. All that was left was the stuff you'd find in a CNN article in January of 2009. Liberals absolutely know the power of propaganda.
-
Wikipedia has always been at the mercy of those who control in the inputs. It's not surprising. What continues to surprise me personally is the number of people who rely on it for truth. Not unlike the internet and political pontifications, don't believe anything until you collect, review, and assess the motivations of the sources. When "experts" agree on global warming.... is a prime example.
-
Editors favoring right-leaning views were six times more likely to be sanctioned than those favoring left-leaning views.
Topic areas identified in the piece are subject to a special regime of sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee, likened to a Supreme Court, in cases often themselves reflecting a political bias. Previous analyses have shown the top Wikipedia sources are mostly left-wing media, which were also found to be the most-cited sources in articles on American politicians
-
One aspect of Wikipedia’s internal operations the authors mentioned were the site’s “verifiability” standards requiring “reliable” sources and its “neutrality” policy requiring “due weight” to all viewpoints based again on “reliable” sourcing. The authors note the standard for “reliable” sourcing is decided through community discussions, such as at Wikipedia’s reliable sources noticeboard. As pointed out by the authors, most sources banned from use for factual claims or “deprecated” are right-leaning sources. Of the current list, 16 right-leaning sources are banned, including Breitbart News. A single banned left-leaning source, Occupy Democrats, was identified by the authors.
Occupy Democrats was nominated for deprecation at the same time as Breitbart, a fact the administrator who proposed both bans has repeatedly used to claim there is no political bias in the process, even though the Facebook spin-off outlet Occupy Democrats was largely inactive at the time of its ban. The authors note that other left-leaning outlets such as AlterNet, have not been deprecated in prior discussions.
-
總結:今次所謂唔可信來源係毒基祇容納左派嘅最新例子。CNN,MSDNC呢啲極左傳媒竟然係可信;引用大量證據企圖糾正呢啲偏見嘅人被無限期ban,更加證明毒基有系統性嘅偏見,打壓。尤其係同政治有關嘅文,更加顯得出毒基祇係左媒嘅傳聲筒,得到極左Big Tech嘅全力支持同偏袒,先會有人信以為真。
-
應該冇乜人會喺維基睇有大量爭議嘅議題,正常人至少會搵三家睇
維基有今日嘅影響力係因爲唔同領域嘅內容都有,重點係數量,唔係質素,最啱fact check都懶嘅人抄功課
https://xsden.info/topic/2424/如果唔鍾意維基嘅政治傾向-點解唔fork
維基嘅政治傾向係咪同佢嘅協作方式有關?就好似出open source federated social media嘅幾間(比如mastodon)都係左膠底
-
@親衞隊 喺 點睇維基「潛在唔可信來源」?點解有人會覺得佢係fake news、毒基,多數寫嘅都係所謂極左無業遊民? 入面講:
維基有今日嘅影響力係因爲唔同領域嘅內容都有,重點係數量,唔係質素,最啱fact check都懶嘅人抄功課
都係,但我覺得更大完因係左癌Big Tech將毒基放喺頭一兩個位
-
@親衞隊 喺 點睇維基「潛在唔可信來源」?點解有人會覺得佢係fake news、毒基,多數寫嘅都係所謂極左無業遊民? 入面講:
應該冇乜人會喺維基睇有大量爭議嘅議題,正常人至少會搵三家睇
維基嘅政治傾向係咪同佢嘅協作方式有關?就好似出open source federated social media嘅幾間(比如mastodon)都係左膠底
我諗多數人都唔會獨立思考,分析。
左膠係反自由派,Mastodon花大量精神打壓Gab ,強迫所有Mastodon server blacklist Gab,毒基admin經常亂ban持相反意見嘅人 -
Twitter 壟斷市場,Ban Trump就話私人公司自由,但蛋糕舖因為宗教自由唔做你生意就被左癌告,而且已經有30幾間鋪肯做你生意。
-
Mastodon花大量精神打壓Gab ,強迫所有Mastodon server blacklist Gab,毒基admin經常亂ban持相反意見嘅人
睇下點強迫?
https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2019/07/statement-on-gabs-fork-of-mastodon/
Gab switches to Mastodon's code
Our statementAfter crowdfunding millions of dollars, social media platform Gab abandoned its own code and switched to the freely available Mastodon software in early 2019 as a way of circumventing Google’s and Apple’s ban on their own app from their app stores, since offering Mastodon’s client-side API would allow any existing Mastodon app to be used to access Gab. We have never had any sympathy for their thinly (if at all) veiled white supremacist platform so that was not a welcome move on our part, however the license that we publish our software under (AGPLv3) allows anyone to use it as they see fit as long as they keep the same license and make their modifications public.
While we gave up the ability to choose who can and cannot use our software by publishing our source code using this Free Software license, we can still choose who we as a project associate with. We are opposed to Gab’s philosophy, which uses the pretense of free speech absolutism as an excuse to platform racist and otherwise dehumanizing content.
Mastodon has been originally developed by a person of Jewish heritage and first-generation immigrant background and Mastodon’s userbase includes many people from marginalized communities. Mastodon’s decentralized approach that allows communities to self-govern according to their needs has enabled those marginalized communities to create safe spaces for themselves where previously they were reliant on big companies like Twitter to stand up for them, which these companies have often failed to do. While the Mastodon software is free for everyone to use and modify, our world view could not be further from Gab’s.
As a truly decentralized network, each Mastodon server operator has to make the call on their own. Many have already opted to block communication from Gab’s servers. On our side, we have blocked them from the Mastodon server that we operate, mastodon.social. We have also recently introduced a more strict policy for which Mastodon servers we promote through our official website joinmastodon.org, listing only such servers that commit to standing up against racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia.
Updates
Last updated: Oct 28, 2021
On Mar 1, 2021, following a breach that likely resulted from Gab’s own modifications to the code and a failure to merge important security fixes from the upstream Mastodon code base, Gab changed the way it published its source code.
First, the public source code repository was taken offline, replacing the code with a message stating that the source code would be provided upon request by e-mail only. Whether this was compliant with the AGPLv3 license was quickly put into question.
At least as soon as the following day, a password-protected archive of the source code was uploaded to the repository, with the password provided in a separate README file.
However, despite changes evidently being made to Gab’s interface and functionality in the following months, that password-protected archive was not updated once in the following 7 months, prompting us to investigate a case of AGPLv3 violation.
On Oct 21, 2021, our legal team sent a Cease & Desist letter to Gab’s legal team, informing them that Gab is in breach of the AGPLv3 license. In response to the letter, the same day the password-protected archive of Gab’s source code was updated.
-
@親衞隊 喺 點睇維基「潛在唔可信來源」?點解有人會覺得佢係fake news、毒基,多數寫嘅都係所謂極左無業遊民? 入面講:
On Oct 21, 2021, our legal team sent a Cease & Desist letter to Gab’s legal team, informing them that Gab is in breach of the AGPLv3 license. In response to the letter, the same day the password-protected archive of Gab’s source code was updated.
https://code.gab.com/gab/gab-open-source
open source得咁冇誠意?
-
@親衞隊 喺 點睇維基「潛在唔可信來源」?點解有人會覺得佢係fake news、毒基,多數寫嘅都係所謂極左無業遊民? 入面講:
On our side, we have blocked them from the Mastodon server that we operate, mastodon.social. We have also recently introduced a more strict policy for which Mastodon servers we promote through our official website joinmastodon.org, listing only such servers that commit to standing up against racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia.
咁算「強迫」?最多係唔幫你宣傳
-
@親衞隊 喺 點睇維基「潛在唔可信來源」?點解有人會覺得佢係fake news、毒基,多數寫嘅都係所謂極左無業遊民? 入面講:
a person of Jewish heritage and first-generation immigrant background
我想知點解成日猶太人做反派?
-
natural cantonese phonetic @ github:trnbsr
學術台 • naturalcantonese • • naturalcantonese • • 2 7 1671 -
點解有人會話1993年先出嘅Jyutping係「正宗粵拼」?
學術台 • 薯衛兵 • • 薯衛兵 • • 1 3 5430 -
農曆唔係純陰曆,點解農曆新年係「Lunar New Year」?
學術台 • 薯衛兵 • 1 1 2493 -
如果唔鍾意維基嘅政治傾向,點解唔fork?
學術台 • 薯衛兵 • • 舊使用者 • • 1 9 1226 -
「孤狼式襲擊」一定係恐怖襲擊?
學術台 • 薯衛兵 • • 薯衛兵 • • 1 11 1370 -
邊個國家係冷戰結束嘅最大得益者?
學術台 • 薯衛兵 • • 舊使用者 • • 1 5 1209 -
[回帶]倪匡:我話全世界人都可以紀念趙紫陽,但廣東人唔得
學術台 • 薯衛兵 • • 薯衛兵 • • 2 9 6238 -
佐治亞投票系統原來有重大安全漏洞?州政府仲要遮遮掩掩?
學術台 • 恆智德 • • 舊使用者 • • 4 19 1404