> Why does it matter if it's woke? The majority of the points seem to be purely beneficial. Partly, though see my comment below in addition to the reply you al

> Why does it matter if it's woke? The majority of the points seem to be purely beneficial. Partly, though see my comment below in addition to the reply you already got: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33330789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33330789 There are issues with at least two of the things they suggest, though: --- Let's start with > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. (PSA: I lean right) This sentence could be good, on its face. But Mozilla for example linked to a Facebook post about Facebook manipulating their own algorithms specifically for the election. The entry lists various websites that are both mainstream and lean distinctly to the left. Facebook's outlet choices may have been less partisan back in the day, but certainly are not in today's world. Imagine CNN touting "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" in front of a burning building. Second, the whole idea of factuality is a purely partisan issue: Most fact-checkers police not factuality, but narrative. See this famous Snopes rating, for example: --- Claim Susan Rosenberg is a convicted terrorist who has sat on the board of directors of Thousand Currents, an organization which handles fundraising for the Black Lives Matter Global Network. Rating Mixture What's True Susan Rosenberg has served as vice chair of the board of directors for Thousand Currents, an organization that provides fundraising and fiscal sponsorship for the Black Lives Matter Global Movement. She was an active member of revolutionary left-wing movements whose illegal activities included bombing U.S. government buildings and committing armed robberies. What's Undetermined In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism." --- One look at that should disabuse the reader that the purpose of the site is to honestly assess factuality. Membership in a bombing organization and being sentenced for possession of a shitton of explosives apparently just isn't terrorism. At that point, you shrug and file the fact-checking enterprise into the same bin as claims about racism - so frivolous they don't even merit consideration anymore. --- The second one that's problematic is this: > Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted. This could actually be very nice. The downside to it, though, is the sort of thing where people knowing what you spend money on politically could be used to harass you. We can just look at how a couple political donations outside of work cost Brendan Eich his job at Mozilla. Some people are so big they can't reasonably be persecuted in these ways, in which case transparency isn't a bad idea. This one has a good ideal, but history is full of ideas that sound good and have good intent, but disastrous second-order consequences.