So contest the source instead of throwing a basic, student level link at me LIKE A BOT WOULD DO.
Comment on Stop Talking To Me, Google Search
its_me_xiphos@beehaw.org 1 day agoHey I appreciate the insight and perspective. But I’ve got to contest the source. Its not holding any weight as a reputable and verifiable resource. I’m not saying this as a jab or attack on you. Its a world of bad info, misinformation, and where I fear your link lands - hyperbole - so please consider this resource rather than a lengthy post:
halm@leminal.space 1 day ago
its_me_xiphos@beehaw.org 21 hours ago
Given the response, the link remains appropriate.
haverholm@kbin.earth 9 hours ago
FYI, "Pivot to AI" do aggregate "AI" news with critical commentary, but if you'd clicked through you would see they cite sources quite thoroughly.
its_me_xiphos@beehaw.org 6 hours ago
I forgot to mention. To get Ecosia financials, you can request them from the applicable oversight office in Germany. Aggregates, like Candid, have access to that too. That’s the sort ofndue diligence I’d expect; not a link to their oversight page and suggestion they are hiding something. Many large nonprofits have financial overviews like that, and doesn’t suggest organizational rot or greenwashing in this case.
A quick glance suggests that in Germany, you can request a social benefit corp’s financials. If like nonprofit law in the USA, you can request a 990 from any 501©3 and they are required, by law, to provide one within a certain time frame.
its_me_xiphos@beehaw.org 7 hours ago
Hi haverholm.
So I did click through again and re-read, but I stand by my assessment that the sources aren’t good. I wouldn’t consider them reputable and the author doesn’t offer verifiable information to support the sources linked. We’ve got:
If I’m missing other links, let me know. I don’t see any others. Again, I don’t see anything that suggests the claims are more than hyperbole. For their financials, for example. Show me where the problem is, speak to it, back up the claim with expert review or hard numbers. As the article is written, that chain just isn’t there and I’m left to take the authors word for it that a problem exists. Glassoldoor and LinkedIn are not evidence of malfeasance. Hence my conclusion and attempt to inform. Which the poster did not appreciate (full disclosure, I blocked them. I don’t have time for disingenuous insults).
Propublica, ICIJ, 404 media are great examples of what I’m trying to point out. And, though my white whale, helping everyone step back and evaluate what a source is and why its credible is important to me.
I appreciate you chiming in and asking me to reasses, however. Always happy to, especially if I find it helped me reveal a mistake or change my thought.
its_me_xiphos@beehaw.org 7 hours ago
Let me double check. I’ve admitted being wrong and missing something before, so happy to reengage.