Misunderstood Weapons of Censorship
Last night someone who said that he's a fan of this site came to IRC and then left because someone 'offended' Russia (the context being the invasion of Ukraine*). This was partly based on a very flawed version of twentieth century history. I didn't quite know if some online disinformation was behind it, but some people in IRC blamed the Party of the Cheeto (it's all in IRC logs anyway). There's no lack of disinformation both online and offline.
We want to cover tech issues without resorting to politics such as these; because they can, at best, divide people who otherwise agree on the tech issues.
In the not-so-distant past, particular GAFAM operatives tried to divide folks in the IRC community by bringing up divisive and totally unrelated topics whilst at the same time inciting online militants to attack us, based on false presumptions, lies basically.
This is part of a tactic; a former insider told me in private that a company she had worked for 'mastered' the art of doing this and, in some cases, advertised that it would somehow use marginalised/vulnerable minorities as a pretext by which to censor critics of their clients (in other words, pay them money, they'll provoke or muddy the water, then censor or deplatform critics).
It's cruel world out there. One needs to be aware of these shady activities, including "censorship-as-a-service". I did lengthy videos about this a few years ago. There's still lots of unpublished material (we're keep it for now) related to this. █
____
* Earlier in the same day I spoke (voice, not text) with something who parroted similar falsehoods; apparently some people need to be reminded that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, that it happened under a different presidency, and that NATO membership was sought as a response to Russian aggression (the chicken-egg scenario is not applicable when there's a timeline that isn't cyclical and the 'cycle' of actual violence started without provocation).