The question was research. I wasn't defending FB. I'm trying to think of positive things that might mean these changes aren't as sinister as they seem. I am full of despair right now.

British airways reflects it's namesake

Well yes, that really is bleak. But I was asking about the process of fact checking and maintaining data. Wikipedia's model is still voluntary. They don't employ fact checkers to a great degree or am I mistaken?

Serious question. How does this compare to Wikipedia's model? Why wasn't Wikipedia so destabilising and are there any lessons we can take from that to reduce the potential harm of this craven act by fb

On the bright side, we finally know what it takes to make Nick Clegg smell the coffee.

Bot

The only thing Glassman's blue labour influences is people like you.

Victims want and need justice which is something an individual with the kind of malignant motives you are displaying is unlikely to understand. Why don't you start a gofundme and pump the proceeds into Nigel's bank account for his enquiry.

And somehow it doesn't bother you that the Tories spent 169k per Rwanda deportee but just £42 per child rape victim. Fuck off back under your rock, if you can find a rock that could withstand your corrosive stupidity.

Oh. I looked at your feed. You are a bot

I sincerely hope this is supposed to be satire

Because the purpose of an enquiry isn't political posturing. It is to make recommendations. The role of the politicians is to implement them. Why do you not know this?

Thank you stig.