If you click on them, many images on Wikipedia will lead you to their parent page on Commons (click “view on Commons”). Ideally, that’s where all non-copyrighted WP files are placed (unlike those that are under copyright, which limits in how many places they can be used).

Literally the only wiki-based media repository out there.

There’s also monoskop.org (although unlike Wikimedia Commons it doesn’t seem to care about copyright law too much).

Of the “free as in freedom” options: Wiktionary and patience. DeepL is not FOSS, and I suppose most other similar sites aren’t.

Nonsense, everything is labelled with its original title there. If you’re looking for Russian music there you’ll probably have to use the Russian band name, but otherwise not.

I understand that most of the rhetoric towards white people that I believe could be interpreted as “racist” are made by the direct victims of white colonialism/racism

On Lemmy? Nah.

Maybe it’s a me thing, but no amount of turning extensions on or off was able to fix it on my end

It’s not just you. For me, for whatever reason, it used to get stuck regularly, for months on end, regardless of the extensions. Then it suddenly started working almost perfectly, maybe half a year ago. Now it works fine like 75% the time but still gets kind of stuck from time to time.

Nice, it looks like they also mirror HathiTrust now?

Pity about .is, over the last year it’s probably been offline more than online. It was the original one, but AA carries on the torch.

.is domain is kill, but .li is still fine, as well as Z-lib, you can download there - Anna’s Archive provides a link whenever available, under external links.

As for Cloudflare, I sometimes have problems with it on Firefox, it likes to get stuck in a loop. Try opening it in incognito, without extensions, to see if any of them might be causing the issue. If that doesn’t work, try opening the link in an another browser.

Yes. Especially in this case where the distribution system is so unreliable. Your own list of “pro” easily beats the “cons”.

If anyone has a guide on how to create a torrent, pls share

If you’re on a private tracker, usually they should have a detailed guide. I would guess public ones have it too, idk for sure tho.

This is mainly why I signed it. I honestly don’t care about new games, and the whole narrative around the campaign is frankly infantile, but it should at the very least be a start towards fighting such practices in general.

(you know who I’m talking about)

(I don’t)

It can have effect when the opposition is relatively weak, e.g. individual small companies or govts that aren’t powerful and authoritarian enough to ignore massive protests.

Sounds like bullshit. Just in recent memory: look at Belarus 2021, look at the massive Serbian protests that have been going on for over half a year and the govt is still not relenting.

Tbh a lot of the torrenting terminology is quite metaphorical and doesn’t make sense without understanding all the mechanics. Seeding? Leeching? Ports? Clients? And even the central concept - “torrent”?

I’ve pirated books that are so rare their used copies cost hundreds of euros. Also there are the English academic publications, which have insane prices even by default, and boy do I love hoarding them. In general, I’ve pirated so much I have no idea how I’d even go about estimating the theoretical total cost.

OTOH I’ve also recently been thinking about how much money I have spent on legally obtaining media, going to concerts and film screenings and plays and exhibitions and everything else… Should be solidly in the four-digit area.

Public companies have to account for the shareholdres’ expectation of, well, making money (and more money, and more money, and growing the numbers as much as possible). Shareholders have some degree influence on how the company works, depending on how many shares they own, e.g. they can vote for the CEO. This usually leads to the company to introducing more aggressive ways of making money off the users/customers, enshittification, etc., as it has to satisfy the shareholders and not so much the original customers.

Tbh I find that they were always surprisingly lenient on piracy. There are multiple subreddits about piracy websites, some of which had their Telegram channels blocked multiple times in the last year or two, while having no issues on reddit, and even some subreddits where people directly link to pirated content.

I don’t think piracy is legal anywhere.

If it suggests a connection, that’s synonymous with it being evidence.

No it isn’t synonymous. Evidence is in principle unambiguous, whereas merely “suggesting” something could be more or less ambiguous. And I think that if you put down the raw facts on paper, i.e. described exactly what the document says, nobody could call that “evidence”, and some number of people would probably agree that it might be only a “suggestion”.

yes, my meme wasn’t 100% accurate

That heavily downplays its actual rhetorical effect. It’s not accurate, but it makes a big attention-grabbing dramatic statement. In other words, it’s in line with the usual methods of conspiracy theories based on bullshit reasoning.

Literally how many times have you brought up one simple typo

No more and no less than twice. Once in my very first comment, and second time in the previous comment. I mostly tried to ignore it, and I brought it up again to underline your general carelessness in treating of the issue. (And it’s not a typo, it’s a factual mistake, as you’ve said.)

you justified your lack of investigation into the CIA while also making statements about CIA history

There’s a few issues here. I haven’t simultaneously claimed to be a leftist and that leftists should be experts in world history and economics, while you did, so this contradiction is only your own. I don’t think I’m an expert on history and I’m afraid I never will be. However, since I have indeed not investigated the history of CIA, that’s exactly why I’ve made only minimal statements about CIA history, statements that should be correct regardless of various other information on its history. I said that: CIA supported some Hungarian dissidents in 1963 (as evidenced by the document in OP), and that CIA spread some radio programs in 1956 Hungary in order to stoke the revolt (as is widely accepted and found on Wikipedia). Everything else I wrote is conditionals based on reasonable assumptions and general knowledge that I am aware is not backed by more precise info on my part: yes, it seems perfectly reasonable that CIA has supported anti-communist movements (I haven’t read about that in any detail but I’ve heard of that happening and it seems to be widely agreed on, so I didn’t problematise it), and it could also be that it has done the same in 1956 Hungary (correct, as it has turned out).

This is simply intellectual carefulness. I’m not appealing to my expertise or wide knowledge, I’m appealing to reading the actual text carefully and extrapolating what can be reasonably extrapolated from it.

I have to be exactly right about everything

In your position, yes you kind of do (even you said: “If you’re a leftist, you have to be an expert on the history of the entire globe, as well as economics and all sorts of other fields.” - high standards!). In general, I think everyone should strive to be maximally correct if they make a claim that hundreds of other people see and take for truth.

Try to approach this discussion with a bit more focus on the arguments and the actual words, and less on me and your own perspective in it. At every turn you’re attacking me, making a stereotype out of me and claiming I’ve said things I haven’t said in order to make our positions seem more symmetrical (you’re trying to argue about what CIA did or did not do, but I’m trying to argue about whether this counts as proof of what CIA did), and conveniently ignoring my key point even when I spell it out in bold letters. Do you find that I’ve done the same to you, have I ascribed you statements and ideas that you haven’t actually previously expressed? (Aside, of course, from the instance where I explicitly announced I would do it by ascribing you the position of those leftists who deride NYT, and in retrospect I shouldn’t have done that because it was nothing more than a pointless jab.) At the same time, you seem to be very emotionally invested in this, downvoting me even while absolutely nobody else is reading this dialogue anymore. Cool it down, you don’t have to respond to me, just please reflect on your own thinking/reasoning process once more, maybe sometime later when you have some distance from all this.

So you’ve at least silently dropped the accusation of my denial of CIA’s involvment in anything. Good, that’s some progress.

What an incredibly stupid line of argument.

Indeed, I did literally declare that it is based on stereotyping as a response to your making a stereotype out of me…

I saw something that suggested there was a connection between the CIA and the uprising

It sure might look like it if you ignore that the uprising happened 7 years earlier and that the organisation CIA supported wasn’t based in Hungary. But it looks like you ignored that while reading the document, so the connection seemed much stronger than it really is.

and how compelling I considered the evidence to be

This is literally no “evidence”, you yourself said it just suggested a connection, it isn’t even close to evidence of it, and your meme straight-up says it was admitted.

If you understood it was an analogy, then nitpicking that the date used in my analogy “wasn’t even in the same decade as my source” is utterly irrelevant.

That’s simply not the point I was going for, you’ve misread it or I should’ve been more clear. My point was this: your analogy used a time and place where the event is nigh impossible to be ascribed to any other entity than KKK and similar; on the other hand, the event of CIA supporting Hungarian dissidents that is described in the document did not happen in the time and place that is the focus of your theory.

but also, there is other evidence that does prove it. So my process seems pretty reasonable.

No, it is not even remotely reasonable to provide mere indications, weak proof, or non-proof, while you have easily available and already generally-accepted proof at your disposal.

criticizing me for not doing a thorough enough investigation into Hungary

Lol, “thorough investigation”, that’s not what I asked of you (again, my first comment: “Can’t you just Google one or two key words?”), you didn’t even check Wikipedia and couldn’t get the year of the revolution right, and, as I said above, made your whole conjecture while likely ignoring the actual content and context of the letter.

If you’re a leftist, you have to be an expert on the history of the entire globe, as well as economics and all sorts of other fields.

But you’ve just justified your lack of investigation into the topic by saying that you don’t have any connection to Hungary, while simultaneously also making a statement on Hungarian history…

And in principle the discussion of whether something did or didn’t happen has little to do with whether one is a leftist or a liberal or anything else. If I’m wrong about something, my politics matter fuck all, I’m simply wrong, and the actual facts will speak for themselves.

It’s incredible to me how ignorant people are of the CIA’s history

I’m not from the US and we didn’t have a class on CIA history. What you expect, am I supposed to be utterly fascinated by your country’s history and read about it extensively just so that we all can be as enlightened as you are?

even calling into question whether they were engaged in these sorts of activities in general

You’re the one who is deviating from the historical record accepted by actual historians.

But I literally haven’t done that. If I have, show me the sentence where I did and I’ll absolutely take it back. You’re reading something into my comments that isn’t there - just like you’re reading events from 1963 US into 1956 Hungary.

The proper propaganda line you’re supposed to use here is

No, I’m not supposed to act like whatever stereotype/strawman you’re imagining in your head. You can fuck right off with this sort of “communication”.

Kinzer is a respected journalist who’s contributed to the NYT and the Guardian.

Thank you for the recommendation. However, if we’re going to hurl stereotypes at each other instead of arguments, I can’t help but point out that I’ve seen numerous Lemmy leftists claim that NYT is a liberal propaganda rag. So idk if that’s actually a plus for Kinzer.

Bruh. That was a separate hypothetical.

What does this even mean? You brought it up as an analogy, I pointed out that the analogy has been picked to make your primary claim look more obvious and logical than it really is.

Great! So I’m right, it’s just like the meme. The only detail that’s in dispute is whether or not the document provides further evidence of involvement.

You might finally start to get it! You accused me of doubting CIA’s involvment even though I literally pointed out to you that there is different, solid evidence they were involved! Like how stupid of a CIA-involvment-denier would I have to be to do that? And yet you’re still failing to understand that this never was my main point anyway!

If I believe that the Earth is flat, but then I have a dream where I see that the Earth is actually round, and then I start believing that it is round, does that mean I’m “correct”? Technically maybe yes but based on wrong information/reasoning!