Yes, a funeral procession for 4 members.

Any popular posts that involve a minority/enemy of right wingers doing something bad or sticking out get brigaded. A blatant example is PublicFreakout where threads are usually fairly normal unless it’s a black/arab/Indian person doing the antagonizing then pretty much all the top comments are dog or regular whistles. Similar “brigading” can happen even in a city subreddit similar to r/Canada even if they are regular users otherwise. If the post is good enough fodder the subreddit will suddenly resemble a klan meetup even if it’s usually otherwise “normal”.

ActualPublicFreakout is an alternative that doesn’t need brigading because it’s already similar to WorldNews.

Yeah, like the other person also mentioned Counter Strike has had a major cheating problem for two decades and it’s still pretty bad today. Valorant is a very similar type of game: twitch shooter that needs fine motor skills and reaction time where one player can dominate an entire match. Valorant has a more intrusive anti-cheat and a lower ratio of cheaters but both game still have cheaters and cheats. People will pay large monthly fees for access to premium, not-yet-detected cheats to compete in competitive circuits.

What’s distinct about twitch shooters is that the core gameplay is very simple (just click on everyone’s head) but it can take thousands of hours to become really competitive at them. People who are not at the same level as their opponent may think they are cheating if they outskill them enough which leads to a feedback loop where new players feel like they need to cheat to be on equal footing because the other person HAS to be doing it too.

Players with a lot of hours can usually tell if someone is cheating with relatively high accuracy (except at very high skill levels where the cheaters are also incredibly good at the game) but newer players tend to consistently call cheats on players that are just better at the game. Competitive drive, lack of trust in other players playing fair and high skill ceilings all create the demand for cheats which in turn creates lucrative opportunities for cheat developers.

Ruining other people’s fun is also another popular reason like you said but I would say most cheaters justify it to themselves in some way.

Keep projecting

Keep projecting your own insecurities

If they are decided by a fraction and you made the correct the political choice then you win. Hope this helps.

Either it makes political sense for her to adopt her current position or it doesn’t. You can’t get voters on both sides of an issue but you can mark where you stand on it and have people vote accordingly.

Not voting for a candidate who is tacitly supporting a genocide on that basis is not “doing bad things” no matter how much bad faith spin you try to add. The candidate has to earn the vote and that applies to non-voters too. Some people care about certain issues enough to abstain from voting on that basis and others vote strategically because its not a team sport. You just want validation for your own voting decision by implying those abstaining from voting are directly or indirectly responsible for your candidate’s opponent winning which they are not. If Harris wins or loses it will be based on her and her party’s policy and campaign decisions.

Since being primarily concerned about the genocide is that unpopular of a position then why are you so concerned? If Harris made the decision that those voters are not as important to her then that’s that. You can’t have it both ways no matter how many self-righteous posts you make online.

Are you sure it was previously deleted stuff? I thought the same thing had happened to me but it was due to subreddits being private at the time of deletion then later coming out of private (some weeks or months later) preventing those then privated posts/comments from being deleted. I think running another automated tool again should do the trick at this point.

On May 31, 2010, the Gaza Freedom Flotilla comprising of the Mavi Marmara, Sfendoni, Challenger I, Eleftheri Mesogios, Gazza I and Defne Y vessels, departed with the aim of delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza but were confronted with an illegal raid and intervention by Israeli military forces. The vessels were only carrying humanitarian aid and aid workers. During this attack and in its aftermath, 10 humanitarian aid workers lost their lives and 56 were severely injured. Nine of the 10 were brutally killed during the attack, and the 10th victim died after spending a prolonged period in a coma

https://ihh.org.tr/en/mavi-marmara

Theyre all relaying the same info from an electricite du liban statement…

What part of the content of the article do you think is untrue?

OpenBoard. Has what I need in terms of customization and I can turn off word prediction/correction (not sure if it even has it to begin with). Used to use Swiftkey several years ago but i like OpenBoard more nowadays.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/radio-free-asia/

This what scores you high credibility: “a less direct propaganda approach” for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

And this is what scores you mixed credibility: “exhibits significant bias against Israel” for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor (updated in Oct 2023 naturally)

Now every article published by Radio Free Asia is deemed more credible than those published by Al Jazeera despite the former literally being called a former propaganda arm of the state in their own assessment. Yes, good is not the enemy of perfect but this is clearly an ideological decision in both instances.

CNN also scores as Mostly Factual based on “due to two failed fact checks in the last five years” one being a single reporter’s statement and the other being about Greenland’s ice sheets. That doesn’t seem like a fair assessment to me

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/

So based on this I am supposed to conclude that Radio Free Asia is the most credible source out of the three at a glance.

Yeah, I’m not saying all their work is worthless and I know they’re good enough for the most extreme sources of misinformation but to paint entire publications as not reliable based on the assessment of couple laypeople with an inherently narrow worldview (at least a very American-centric one) is the opposite of avoiding bias in my opinion.

That’s literally what the other source being added called Groundnews attempts to do.

Have you looked into who runs Media Bias Fact Check? It’s pretty much as opaque as it gets for a website that claim to have an authoritative list of biases for hundreds of websites. Just because it’s a meta source does not make it any more credible than any other random website.

That’s just introducing 2 more sources of bias