zlacker

>>nickpa+(OP)
A paltry few hundred million $ in the war chest is nothing to keep open a site mainly devoted to coordinating established facts in an information landscape otherwise controlled by state actors.

And I would, and I did, contribute to Wikipedia.

Until it became clear to me that they'd allowed antisemitic, anti-Israeli politics to warp their articles about things like the Holocaust, the 6-day war or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the point that no neophyte could get a neutral recitation of facts, but would be confronted with an enormously racist and biased perspective at every step.

Essentially, they became like the UN general assembly. A body pretending to represent free speech and human rights that's stuffed with illiberal violators of human rights. And I don't need to contribute to that, or even care if it exists.

>>noduer+8a
>>. A body pretending to represent free speech and human rights that's stuffed with illiberal violators of human rights.

UN literally never pretended to do such a thing - it's just a forum for countries to meet and discuss issues, with no power to really do anything other than agree or disagree with each other on whatever is being discussed. Kicking out say Russia or China or North Korea from the UN makes no sense in that context, because you can't have an international forum for discussion if you are not letting countries in to actually you know, discuss.

I think it stems from the idea of UN that people have in their head, maybe it's embedded by the popular media or otherwise, but I see people complaining that UN doesn't force countries to do X or Y. That's literally not how it works - it's just a forum to talk, nothing less nothing more.

>>gambit+Gc
Discussion is only useful when the parties are acting in good faith. It's better to limit discussion to good-faith actors than to allow their transparency to provide camouflage and give the appearance of normality to bad-faith actors who only seek to use the openness of the discussion to execute policies that directly undermine discussion writ large. This has always been the weakness of democracies, and it's always been apparent to and exploited by authoritarian states, and there's no reason whatsoever to allow them to continue to have the pretextual cover of international approval from a body that, in principle, has accepted a declaration of human rights.

TL;DR, the UN's discussions serve now only to grant the veneer of liberal discourse to illiberal states by implying that their collective authoritarian voices should be taken seriously by the democracies, when in fact they should be given no platform whatsoever. Let alone one upon which to expound on human rights!