reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Yahoo News discusses how leftist media is censoring voices by allowing certain political content to be posted while blocking others. The speaker demonstrates that typing "Trump 2024" triggers a warning about inappropriate content, but typing "Biden 2024" goes through without issue. This is presented as evidence of bias and silencing of conservative viewpoints. The speaker urges viewers to share this information. Translation: The video talks about how the media is censoring voices by allowing some political content while blocking others. Typing "Trump 2024" triggers a warning, but "Biden 2024" is allowed. This is shown as bias against conservative views. The speaker encourages sharing this information.

Every outlet is subjective, but all should be allowed. Google's search engine now prioritizes authoritative sources based on surveys, pushing away from diverse perspectives. This hierarchical approach limits access to alternative viewpoints, steering users towards mainstream sources like the New York Times over specialized sites like the world socialist website. This shift contradicts the ideal of freely exploring all information to form our own opinions.

"New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Nation, Mother Jones, GLAAD." "Breitbart, Daily Caller, Epic Times, Fox News, New York Post, The Federalist." "Anti defamationally gets a green light." "Only for some. Yes. If you're reporting about the about the Arab Israeli conflict? Yes. You may not cite them." "You can't you can't find the Jewish perspective on the war so easily anymore on Wikipedia." "There is a a serious academic encyclopedia of Christianity that is not allowed on Wikipedia." "Daily Caller not allowed." "Life site news not allowed." "Sputnik, of course, not allowed." "TV Guide allowed." "The Uns review not allowed." "TV Guide totally cool." "Uns. V dare not allow." "Mister x is the name of his account." "This is obviously huge news."

Google's AI shows bias by favoring democratic views over republican ones, censoring certain political figures like RFK Junior, while allowing others like Fauci. It also provides information unequally on Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The founders of Google are Jewish and support Israel. This raises concerns about Google's impact on democracy.

Wikipedians writing articles aren't focused on finding the truth, but on the best of what we can know right now. After seven years, the speaker believes this approach is valuable. For tricky disagreements, seeking the truth and convincing others of it might not be the best starting point. Our reverence for the truth may have become a distraction preventing consensus and progress.

Every outlet is subjective, but they should all be allowed. Google's search engine now prioritizes authoritative sources over others, like showing mlb.com instead of a local Little League site. This approach limits access to diverse perspectives, favoring mainstream sources like the New York Times over specialized ones like the world socialist website. This hierarchical system goes against the idea of letting individuals make their own decisions by seeing all available information.

Larry Sanger explains Wikipedia’s origin with Jimmy Wales, stating "I coined the name Wikipedia" and that he drafted policies like "the neutrality policy" to "summarize knowledge fairly and without bias." He notes the project later aligned with center-left media, and the "neutral point of view" now "discourages giving equal validity to, minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claims." Conservatives were pushed out; "85% of the most powerful accounts on Wikipedia are anonymous" and "the Wikimedia Foundation enjoys section two thirty immunity." The "perennial sources page" blacklist blocks Breitbart, Daily Caller, Epic Times, Fox News, New York Post, The Federalist. Sanger’s nine theses: 1 end decision making by consensus; 2 enable competing articles; 3 abolish source blacklists; 4 revive the original neutrality policy; 5 repeal ignore all rules; 6 reveal who Wikipedia's leaders are; 7 let the public rate articles; 8 end indefinite blocking; 9 adopt a legislative process.

Wikipedia, the web-based encyclopedia, was founded on the idea of crowd-sourced, user-generated content. However, concerns have been raised about political bias in its editing process. While Wikipedia claims to be open to anyone editing, there is evidence of left-leaning bias among its administrators. Reliable sources on the left are deemed acceptable, while conservative outlets are often rejected. Examples of bias include downplaying violence by the Antifa movement and minimizing the atrocities of socialism and communism. Attempts to correct these biases are quickly reverted. Despite its popularity, many are skeptical of the political neutrality of Wikipedia and have stopped donating to the platform.

Wikipedia initially adopted a neutrality policy from Nootenia and made significant efforts to maintain it for its first five years. However, over the past 10 to 15 years, it has gradually shifted towards a leftist perspective, particularly in political articles. This change mirrors the broader trends in news media, which have increasingly moved to the left. As a result, Wikipedia has excluded many conservative news sources and blogs from its references. This evolution has been surprising, especially considering the noticeable shift towards a center-left viewpoint that was already evident by 2010.

Wikipedia's model works well even in contentious areas like politics and religion because contributors focus on the best of what we can know, not necessarily "the truth." Seeking the truth and convincing others of it may not be the right approach for tricky disagreements. A reverence for the truth might distract from finding common ground. The speaker is not saying the truth doesn't exist or isn't important, but that different people have different truths. These truths often result from merging facts with beliefs, and are based on factors like background, upbringing, and how others perceive us.

Wikipedia's model works well in contentious areas like politics and religion because contributors focus on the best of what we can know right now, not necessarily on "the truth." After working with Wikipedia contributors, the speaker believes that seeking the truth and convincing others of it might not be the right approach for tricky disagreements. Reverence for the truth may distract from finding common ground. The speaker is not saying the truth doesn't exist or isn't important, but that different people have different truths. Truth is often what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. These differing truths are based on factors like background, upbringing, and how others perceive us.

Free and open principles, originating from the open-source community, were initially seen as foundational. However, it's argued that this approach is limited in achieving broader goals. Despite good intentions, free and open models, particularly in Wikipedia, often replicate existing offline power structures. Wikipedia, it's claimed, reconstructed knowledge around the Western canon, leading to the exclusion of languages and communities. The emphasis on reliable sources and written tradition favors cultures with such traditions. Notability standards are said to reflect a Westernized construct, influencing whose voices are elevated. Therefore, radical openness allegedly failed to fulfill its intended potential.

Free and open principles, originating from the open-source community, were initially seen as foundational. However, it's now believed that this perspective is limited relative to broader goals. Despite good intentions, free and open approaches, particularly in Wikipedia, often replicated existing offline power structures. Wikipedia inadvertently rebuilt knowledge around the Western canon, excluding communities and languages due to its reliance on "reliable sources." The emphasis on a written tradition, specific to certain cultures, and the concept of notability, often reflect a Westernized construct that favors certain voices. Radical openness, therefore, did not fully realize its intended potential.

Wikipedia inherited its neutrality policy from Nupedia and initially made a strong effort to maintain it for about five years. However, over time, it has shifted towards what some perceive as leftist propaganda, particularly in political articles. This change aligns with the broader shift in news media over the past 10 to 15 years, which has seen a decline in conservative sources and an increase in left-leaning perspectives. The evolution of Wikipedia's content has mirrored this media landscape shift, leading to a noticeable center-left bias by around 2010.

Twitter heavily favors left-leaning ideologies, evident in their suspension of right-wing accounts and 99% Democrat political donations. This bias is clear when a company donates almost exclusively to one political party.

When searching "climate change" on Google, the results mainly come from the UN and official news sources. Despite claiming 868 million results, only 422 are shown, mostly from reputable organizations. Blogs and independent sources are scarce, raising questions about the missing content on the internet.

History is shaped by those who control Wikipedia editing. Losers have time to edit Wikipedia, influencing the narrative.

Some media outlets show bias towards politicians, treating Republicans differently than Democrats. For instance, CNN cut away from Trump's Iowa victory speech, while MSNBC refused to air it, citing his tendency to lie. Both Trump and Biden have made false claims, yet the media's treatment varies. The new NPR CEO has a history of controversial statements, highlighting this bias. Coverage of Texas politicians defying federal law contrasts with the leniency shown towards sanctuary cities. Additionally, Argentina's new libertarian president is labeled "far right," despite his policies being more aligned with free trade and economic principles. Protests against his budget cuts are covered extensively, but his threat to cut welfare for illegal street blockers effectively ended the protests. More people are now turning to independent news sources, indicating a shift away from traditional media.

Google's AI shows bias by favoring Democratic views over Republican ones, censoring certain political figures, and providing unequal information on Israel-Palestine conflict. The AI struggles with generating content in the style of certain individuals deemed harmful. The founders of Google are Jewish and support Israel. This bias raises concerns about democracy and censorship.

When searching "climate change" on Google, most results come from the UN. Top stories are from mainstream sources like CNBC and NASA. After scrolling through 43 pages, only 422 results are found, mostly from official organizations and news outlets. Blogs and independent sources are scarce, raising questions about the missing billions of results promised initially.

Global media reporting is often synchronized. Biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories without checking

The speaker argues that a major shift from polarization to productive collaboration lies in how Wikipedians approach knowledge: they aren’t solely focused on finding an absolute truth, but on articulating “the best of what we can know right now.” After years of work, this approach is claimed to be yielding insights into our most difficult disagreements. The speaker suggests that for certain contentious issues, chasing truth and trying to persuade others of it may not be the most effective starting point for consensus or action. Acknowledging that truth matters, the speaker still emphasizes that truth can be a “fickle mistress” and its beauty often lies in the struggle. The human record of experience—our sublime chronicles—reflects many different truths to be explored. The speaker asserts that truth exists for everyone in the room and likely for the person next to them, but that the two do not necessarily share the same truth. This divergence arises because truth is formed when facts about the world are merged with our beliefs about the world. In summary, the speaker contends that individuals each hold a potentially valid truth shaped by their interpretations, and that recognizing multiple, personally constructed truths is essential to moving beyond simple factual disputes toward collaborative problem-solving.

- Grokopedia is introduced as a new alternative to Wikipedia, built on Elon Musk’s xAI model designed for deep understanding and reasoning, not just regurgitating text. - The program suggests Wikipedia has shifted left over time. It recounts how, ten years ago, Wikipedia was praised as a dream and as a replacement for traditional encyclopedias, with Britannica’s editor deriding encyclopedias as requiring paid researchers, while Wikipedia grew to become the world’s go-to resource and Britannica stopped printing books. - The speakers claim that, although Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, politics on the site is dominated by leftists. They point to examples of editors who advertise socialist views and display images of Che Guevara and Lenin. - They state that Wikipedia’s bias is evident in who counts as reliable or not, asserting that conservative media are deemed unreliable while outlets like CNN, MSNBC, Vox, Slate, The Nation, and Mother Jones are considered reliable. They claim Fox News is treated as unreliable, while Al Jazeera is considered generally reliable. - The narrative asserts bias in topic coverage and notability decisions. They mention a controversy over an article about a Ukrainian refugee that was deleted on the grounds it might not meet notability, contrasting it with other crimes that remained in Wikipedia. They also note a case where a suspect’s name was blacked out because he hadn’t been convicted, but another case (Kyle Rittenhouse) was named despite his status as a minor and not convicted. - The discussion includes claims that public pressure can sway Wikipedia at times (e.g., Irina Zerutsko’s article staying after outcry), but overall “nothing changes.” They describe a group of editors they call the “gang of forty,” who allegedly push propaganda in the Israel-Palestine conflict by removing mentions of terror attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas, and they describe a page titled “Donald Trump and Fascism” created just before a presidential election as interfering with elections. - They argue that Wikipedia presents a single worldview on major topics, excluding other perspectives, citing Fidel Castro’s successor Raul Castro as lacking the term “authoritarian” on his page, while other leaders have such labels applied. They also discuss government censorship and state-controlled outlets influencing Wikipedia’s content, noting that Chinese government censors flood the site and that China runs state propaganda outlets cited tens of thousands of times. - The COVID-19 lab-leak theory is discussed, with the speakers claiming that while evidence later emerged suggesting a lab origin, Wikipedia still claims “no evidence supporting laboratory involvement,” calling it a conspiracy theory. - Grokopedia is presented as offering an alternative where Grok lists investigations that affirm a lab-leak as the most probable origin, and the speaker says Grok is better than Wikipedia on their own page, which they claim contains mistakes and smears on the Wikipedia platform. - They mention other competing projects like Justopedia, founded by a veteran Wikipedia editor who wanted an alternative due to perceived left-wing bias; Scienceopedia and Justopedia are described as gaining momentum to provide more source variety. - The discussion closes with perspectives on governance of Wikipedia’s editorial direction: Catherine Mayer, head of the Wikimedia Foundation, is portrayed as evolving Wikipedia toward a woke and DEI ideology, with Maurer described as shaping critical years starting in 2016 and steering the foundation toward a social justice mission. - The speakers conclude with a call for dedicated, area-specific editors to enter and influence topics, suggesting that a few dozen committed editors could make a difference, though acknowledging the time required.

Speaker explains how to find Wikipedia's blacklist by typing perennial sources, Wikipedia into any search engine; the first result is the page, and it names them the blacklist. It’s color coded: Green means fully approved; red means blacklisted. Fully greenlit sources include New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Nation, Mother Jones, GLAAD. Blacklisted sources include Breitbart, Daily Caller, Epic Times, Fox News, New York Post, The Federalist. Red means it's blacklisted; you cannot cite it as a source of facts, maybe as a source of opinion. Anti defamationally gets a green light, only for some; if you're actually reporting about the Arab-Israeli conflict, you may not cite them. You can't find the Jewish perspective on the war so easily anymore on Wikipedia. Catholic hierarchy celebrity. There's a serious academic encyclopedia of Christianity that is not allowed on Wikipedia. Daily Caller not allowed. Life site news not allowed. Sputnik not allowed. TV Guide allowed. The Uns review not allowed. Mister x is the name of his account; it’s edited by a whole bunch of other people.