You mean why openDemocracy gives a crap about Endchan?>>739
That's what these Soros sponsored gittegylets (see definition: >>737
) do. Smear shit.
Just look at this shit.>we seek to educate citizens to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world.
They should support imageboards because right now on the interned they are the only places that really are platforms of freedom of speech, privacy, decentralization, etc etc. But instead they are demonizing us because they desperately searching for hidden nests of oppression so they can inflate it out of proportion and this way justify their own existence and rationalize why did it worth to spend their sponsors money on them.
They seek to educate people but instead they give them false impressions on things they themselves don't understand. The author of this article successfully washed together the whole chan with a couple of selected boards to fit her own narrative. And now if we would say, that hey, we are for freedom of speech, she (and readers educated on her article) can reply: "freedom of speech? but those nazis censoring posts that criticize nazism!"
It is really twisted.
Besides she either didn't recognize the reference to the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy, which makes her an illiterate ox, or on purpose took it out of context to paint Endchan into something sinister which hides at the end of the universe in a dark corner, which makes her malevolent.
Ofc, these types of comments: >>729
aren't help us really. Kikes this or kikes that. Not that I mind it's his business whom he hates, just easy to point out such posts and generalize it that if we tolerate them sure we are the same. As good liberal ofc, the author of that article that is, she can't stand that people really allowed to speak their mind - or even think something she disagrees with - she would ban everything she doesn't like, but she knows better, she demonizes instead. Make everyone untouchable, socially unacceptable. Old trick, the salami tactics is.