this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
278 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
58111 readers
5487 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If only his sources matter, link those instead. Bringing in Lunduke's article means bringing in his views. That's not some special Lunduke-hate-boner property, if anyone linked an Israeli news website in a thread about Gaza, I'd call that ridiculous too. Articles reflect their authors, and you happened to pick one of the worst authors in tech.
Because Lunduke's ideas can cause real damage to people's lives, and I'm tired of seeing them. Again, I'm sorry if I come across as affronted—this genuinely, deeply frustrates me. And it's hard to hold that down.
I don't blame you. I don't know how you found the article, or how you read it. But please reconsider sharing Lunduke's stuff. The man's one step away from conspiracy theorist, or hell, maybe he counts as one already.
"In different words" is doing a lot of work, there. But that's a great point you made, sex has nothing to do with the project. So why did he reject a simple change which only made sex even less relevant?
And I ask again: which other side is Lunduke representing that you felt was important to include?