Yall didn’t like my earlier fluff, lets try an actual fluff article this time. I do realize its just rehashing more bullshit, but activity is good, right?
Yall didn’t like my earlier fluff, lets try an actual fluff article this time. I do realize its just rehashing more bullshit, but activity is good, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fake_news_websites
Literally fake news.
Literally not in that list.
Obviously it’s been edited in the weeks since I’ve posted that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1170328667
Feel free to read more about it: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/slay-news-bias-and-credibility/
Damn, reading trough the edits and who places them just shows how terrible wikipedia is. The worst part is that they have millions to spare every year but decide not to hire people to do things properly
It’s under attack by a major disinformation movement right now. Fascists gonna fasc.
That, and also management getting rich of off donation money
We get it. Everything that goes against your narrative is fake news.
Maybe so, but you’re going to have to do better than Wikipedia citing USA Today to make a compelling case for it.