2 ms·
this post is from a reputed source, I see no reason why it should be taken down. As far as I am concerned, this is not a subjective thing, the crack down on A
by ashleshbiradar 6y ago
this post is from a reputed source, I see no reason why it should be taken down.
As far as I am concerned, this is not a subjective thing,
the crack down on Amnesty International in the country is not subject to individual opinions.
- malware7 6y agoIt just happens that the "reputed source" itself is under question for source of their funding. What you consider reputed is your opinion, not a fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_Internati...
- djsumdog 6y agoWikipedia is not a good source for anything remotely controversial at this time. One of the founders did a great post on it: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ If you do read Wikipedia, always do two things: 1) Read the Talk page 2) Go to the history and read the same article from 2005 ~ 2010
- ashleshbiradar 6y agolol, dude, the criticism is mostly from authoritarian countries, China, Iran, Russia, or countries that violate human rights, Sri Lanka(the entire issue with tamils), or US(Guantánamo Bay).
- naruvimama 6y agoThe Indian government is answerable to the people, Amnesty International is answerable to the government, the courts and perhaps its "donors". There is a robust system for the former, not so much for the later. AI can complain all it wants but they are just bringing in more scrutiny into their activities.