This is the sort of internet cheap shot that passionate partisans come up with. If you multiply all the moderation actions you agree with by 0% and all the ones you disagree with by 100%, yes, you're going to end up with quite a picture of bias. But it's a picture you've generated yourself by weighting the variables that way.
For example, I specifically turned off the flags on this submission. That's a moderation action you presumably support, since you submitted it. But you overlook that, while a title edit is "very telling". Meanwhile there's someone on the opposite side of the question who's weighting the same two actions in the opposite way and coming up with the opposite conclusion, which they no doubt also consider "very telling".
Nothing more jarring than the harrowing treatment of Assange by the US, contrasted with their subsequent lecturing and sanctioning of Belarus re Roman Protasevich, or Russia re Navalny.
Do the US need to extra judicially murder Assange in order to make an example of him?
I can imagine what would happen if Russia tried the same tactic as the US and used diplomatic channels in order to successfully influence the legal systems in countries like the UK and Sweden.
Those charges magically appeared when the US wanted him on their soil, and equally magically disappeared when it looked like they had their hands on him.
Is inventing a rape charge in order to kidnap a journalist also a terrible thing to do, in your opinion?
I am very disappointed in Sweden when they chose to spend several millions in disproportion on this case rather than all the other rape and murder cases which Sweden have.
I am disappointed in Sweden that a prosecutor went against Swedish law, was found to be guilty of Swedish law, and yet received no punishment. It the only known case in Swedish history where the crime was public news for years and yet the prosecutor continued without changing course.
I am disappointed that when it became known that US diplomats has been involved in influencing the Swedish case, nothing happen.
I am disappointed that a political active prosecutor took over a case from an other prosecutor in a rather explicit way after getting a "tip" to do so.
I am disappointed that the police somehow "leaked" protected documents to journalist.
I am disappointed that the Swedish government opened the case just after Wikileaks released a bunch of classified diplomatic cables, and dropped the case in order to allow the US to take it over.
I am disappointed that the Swedish government had zero interest in investigate the case.
I am disappointed that the Swedish police ignored the wishes of the women.
If you want to talk about stealthing we can do that, or if Assange is a respectful to his sexual partners, or about the finer details of Swedish categories of the lesser degree sexual offenses. It has nothing more with the actually case, than when a police murder someone for a parking violation. Severe corruption is a separate problem than if Assange are guilty of the Swedish charges or not.
You have fallen victim to and are repeating a propaganda lie.
As documented by judicial procedure (Swedish equivalent to FOIA), the "stealthing" was a pure invention by the police. It was added days later _as ordered by email_ by the hierarchical superior of the policewoman who typed the statement of the second woman. This was done against the original wishes of both women, and contrary to what they originally said. Even calling it a statement is a misnomer (read more further on that subject).
That happened after tabloids had published that a rape had allegedly happened, somehow with the name of the victims. The changed was annulled later, after the fact, when this was found out.
What the story actually is, as documented as a matter of judicial procedure :
The first woman had had consensual relations with Assange, knowingly without a condom, as she herself witnessed; the second woman had consensual sex one day after; she found out after he left the condom was broken; they found out about each other a little later.
Before asking Assange directly, they wanted to know if they could make Assange take an HIV test. They went to ask a policewoman friend of the first if that was possible. Neither didn't want to make a statement, nor sign one, nor report a crime.
The policewoman wrote it down just in case. Two hours later Swedish tabloids report Assange raped somebody. The condom, as tested later on, somehow contained no DNA of Assange's.
There was lot more fishy happening on the prosecutor's side, but it's beside this comments' points.
These were claims made in court, during formal hearings. They weren’t disputed, and as such, they are part of the official court record and are worth more than random hearsay.
The US’ repsponse (as quoted) was that these allegations were “wholly irrelevant.” That doesn’t sound like a denunciation or denial to me.
Globalism is the great filter. Social media is the first taste.
COVID as an example, would have previously been a contained regional outbreak. Globalism made it an instant problem for every continent. Social media exacerbated responses in most every country.
Plenty of global pandemics before COVID. Globalisation is how we got so many viable vaccinations so quickly.
Monocultures are fragile. The only part of globalisation that gives me cause for concern is that it can make bigger monopolies that would otherwise be possible.
The site guidelines explicitly ask you not to post like this. If you have specific concerns about astroturfing or similar abuses, please email hn@ycombinator.com so we can investigate. If you're just making up garden-variety internet insinuation about this stuff, that's off topic on HN. Either way, please don't post like this again.
