Sketchy? Some would say this forum is "sketchy" - I dare say many think "Q" is sketchy. I got over sensitivity to such things long ago myself.
I don't know jack shit about who owns GN - I don't even have a theory. But, I'm not overly shocked that a news aggregate site links to articles and videos.
I wasn't describing all of GN as sketchy (though that would be an apt description); i was describing their ownership as such. The ownership of Communities.win is legally known and established; there is plenty of available records of the actions of them and the GAW moderators. Their motives seem fairly transparent, and are reflected by their actions.
We have little clear information as to who owns GN. They lack most of the common disclaimers and legal information. They provide zero information or proof of identity. For an entity that rakes in profits, that is a giant red flag, and very possibly illegal.
Comparing GN to GAW or Q is a dead end; there is a distinct and objective difference, and the same differences are what make GN sketchy all around. The others may be sketchy, but not in the same way.
It isn't that GN links to articles and videos. If that's what you're saying the only concerns are, that is an illogical strawman argument. They're profiting off of people despite claiming they take no donations; they're presenting information as "proof" that they are insiders, but that information is not unique like they claim. They're attempting to build trust with the Q circles, which is dangerous because they may utilize that trust to mislead. They ban people for asking legitimate questions about their validity.
Sketchy? Some would say this forum is "sketchy" - I dare say many think "Q" is sketchy. I got over sensitivity to such things long ago myself.
I don't know jack shit about who owns GN - I don't even have a theory. But, I'm not overly shocked that a news aggregate site links to articles and videos.
I wasn't describing all of GN as sketchy (though that would be an apt description); i was describing their ownership as such. The ownership of Communities.win is legally known and established; there is plenty of available records of the actions of them and the GAW moderators. Their motives seem fairly transparent, and are reflected by their actions.
We have little clear information as to who owns GN. They lack most of the common disclaimers and legal information. They provide zero information or proof of identity. For an entity that rakes in profits, that is a giant red flag, and very possibly illegal.
Comparing GN to GAW or Q is a dead end; there is a distinct and objective difference, and the same differences are what make GN sketchy all around. The others may be sketchy, but not in the same way.
It isn't that GN links to articles and videos. If that's what you're saying the only concerns are, that is an illogical strawman argument. They're profiting off of people despite claiming they take no donations; they're presenting information as "proof" that they are insiders, but that information is not unique like they claim. They're attempting to build trust with the Q circles, which is dangerous because they may utilize that trust to mislead. They ban people for asking legitimate questions about their validity.
No outside comms.