Recent comments in /f/Media

pearl wrote

I hate headlines that go "[country] does [x]." Its not very harmful this time, but the article states "Sky News Australia has been pulled off the air by independently-owned Sky New Zealand," which doesn't at all imply New Zealand has done anything; it implies Sky New Zealand has.

This, as most issues do, gets worse when referring to third world nations to the joy of Americans and Europeans, but it stuck out to me this time because of how quickly it contradicts the title.

2

pearl wrote

He often replies to nearly every single bit of pushback with walls of text arguing his case. Trying to get through even a fraction of it is exhausting, and because Wikipedia editors are unpaid, there’s little motivation to continue dealing with Sussman’s arguments. So he usually gets his way.

This is a common thing in pretty much any online context; its more harmful in cases like Wikipedia, though, where not responding means that their agenda has been successfully pushed.

There's ultimately no mechanism against it as far as I'm aware; they wear you down until you've no will to continue, and if that fails they rally a dozen others who agree with them to make it even worse.

2