Probably mean the weird double standard where a big portion of the content on lemmy is bluesky screenshots and no one complains about them, but somehow whenever you mention bluesky as an alternative to twitter people will completely ignore the features that make it more popular than mastodon and demonise it to make it sound as bad as twitter.

It’s not like other services. Books are only a couple mb so it’s really easy to reupload the entire website.

Check out the piracy lemmy community megathread.

Yeah it’s got loads of domains. It’s never been gone.

Stem cells.

He’s not talking about the stem cells that can cure a select few diseases.

He’s talking about an alternative medicine thing which is basically sticking cells from your right arm into your left arm and calling it “stem cell therapy” then claiming it can cure hundreds of diseases.

There is zero evidence (or RCTs) showing his version of “stem cells” works.

The FDA bases approval on two highly successful phase 3 RCTs of a specific drug for a specific condition. You can read more about that process here

Neither psychedelics not RFK’s version of stem cell therapy has that yet.

Interesting anecdote. Though to judge by your username, it seems you may have an agenda yourself.

This wasn’t the ME/CFS article (the illness I am personally disabled by) and anyways all this happened before I became disabled.

Anyways my ban is over now, but I can’t get myself to edit wikipedia anymore. It was a pretty shitty experience and I don’t wanna go back.

And it wasn’t the only one. So much NPOV-violating stuff on most the fringe articles and whenever you edit to make more neutral tone or you remove something unsupported by citations you end up in an insufferable straw man argument chain on the talk page.

The main fun part is filling out abandoned articles and making new articles yourself. But anything showing problems in other people’s work becomes really tiring really quick with all the talk page nonsense and endless reverts.

It definitely has, just not to as large a scale.

In practice it’s ran like a heirarchical aristocracy, where a admins control articles they care about and are very picky about the changes they allow.

One article about an illness contains false information related to alternative medicine “treatments” and I edited it, this was removed by the person who made most of the page. I got into an argument with them, and turns out they have the same username and come from the same country as an account on other platforms selling alternative medicine products, which are subtly advertised on the page they control. They also are a wikipedia admin.

Anyways I reported this to the admin team, and my report was immediately deleted by the admin I was reporting, and I got a three year ban. Mind you I have over a thousand wikipedia edits and have made some big contributions so this was quite annoying.

And this is far from the only incident. The people who are most likely to edit wikipedia pages are those who really care about, or could really benefit from the topic. So you end up having situations where companies hire agencies to improve their image by changing the wikipedia article about them and their products, same thing for celebrities.

The more you try to overtly meddle the more the kid will be convinced of their beliefs, reactionaries thrive off disagreement and arguments.

Get them something normal, perhaps something the connects with nature. Your goal should be to get them to connect with you and the rest of the family, you want them too feel like they are part of the in-group.

Z-library

FWIW the “die” is probably more coming from german and dutch posts than english

Yep I just tried and got “people, good, people, good, good, good, die”