I just found some truly top kek: The Washington Independent, Feb. 1, 2022 - "The Idea Behind GreatAwakening.Win"
(washingtonindependent.org)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (21)
sorted by:
.....
What doubts? winn expressed some concern that perhaps the OP had stumbled onto a deep state mossad psyop. I wondered if this was the reason you hid the post.
Did you read my dig on it, under winn?
It's a fake dodgy site, for sure, and the article is dodgy stuff, BUT because it relates directly to GAW, it's a relevant post, i think.
Also, the GAW post isn't asserting anything except anti-Q nonsense, so I don't think that disinfo is an issue.
The digs that are under it are high effort and a good example for frogs of GAW to read. (We do NOT see enough of high effort digs on ANY topic here. So much just blathering reactions and copy/pasting 'news'.)
The post and comments aren't exactly advocating the website either, so it's much more of a solid debunking than promotion of fake websites or disinfo stuff.
I would have thought the the comments under the post are highly instructive for all GAW frogs, especially those that don't really have any concept of digging.
My two cents.
Several mods looked at this. We see your point, the content is intriguing. But is it potentially harmful as well? We can't be sure. It could be a way to log IPs or something. That's not in my wheelhouse but I can see the potential for malice. And given that there's nothing new here - we all know GAW is monitored - mods think it best not to send users to this very sus "news" site.
Well, it's great to get the mods (several) perspective and input. Not difficult to accept the conclusion.
Appreciate ya Frac
I was in a hurry and playing it safe.
I'll get another opinion from the mod team.
Thank you mod. Your service is of great value! Let no one tell you otherwise!
It's amazing that you get around to doing so much.
/ no sarc
You're welcome of course, I've mentioned this post in the mod staffroom, they may think it's fine to re-instate this post.
Thanks Props. Really happy to have a bunch of moddies take a considered look.
Just jumping in on the conversation...
I totally agree that this post has some excellent discussion going on. However, I have major concerns about links being included to the site in question. Had they not been included, I would not have had any objections to the post staying up. As a mod, though, it is our job to think of the best interests of the group, as a whole. Having seen anons do and try just about everything under the sun, it is inevitable that a few anons will attempt to visit this site. It's a tough call, but in light of the links being freely available, I think it is best not to repost this.
Thank you Wulf. Having the multiple input really helps to make the decision based, (imo) and it also makes it both easier to embrace (by me) but also getting the mod perspectives helps me to expand my frame of reference.
One idea that popped into my head is to do a post that takes the techniques and strategies employed in the discussion, and write that up as a generic "how to...." in terms of verifying, identifying, approaching questionable websites (i.e. fake, not what they appear). A sort of debunking case study. This could be done without any specific reference to this or any other website, using unidentified examples.
That said, wow, this website is extremely dasting from a research perspective. After going through an examination from various angles, it was a little mind blowing to arrive at the dude who did a whole write up on it.
I'm not too saavy in the ways of web design or data theft, code manipulation, but I can understand that potential might exist here. So happy to defer to the modclusion. (That's "mods' conclusion". Coined, April 2025.)