Hacker News Reader

Comment by femiagbabiaka | Hacker News Reader

I cited an article in my comment to back up my claims. The paper it references is publicly available and goes into more detail. Is that not enough?

View on HN

this laughable article cites luminaries such as unnamed "experts" and a computer science grad student. So, no, this is not enough - can you yourself define what you mean by "ultra-right" viewpoints ?

Nazism and white nationalism, for starters. This is all gone over in that laughable article. To help, here's the study referenced, which has two, not one, researchers cited: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.09685. They also published their data on GitHub: https://github.com/htried/wiki-grok-comparison/tree/main.

I suspect that you might've tried to use an LLM to summarize the article, which is why you missed critical data and got some of the basic facts about its sourcing incorrect. I'm a fan of using LLM's to speed up research, but you should probably pick a different model next time.

the article remains laughable because it is biased agitprop quoting a single unpublished pre-print paper with no attempt to provide any counter arguments in favour of the site. Have you actually visited ? I took a look at the articles on white nationalism and National Socialism and found them quite informative. Nothing "hateful" that I could see.

Now visit the Wikipedia articles on "Drug Liberalization", Communism, Roe v Wade, abortion to see the left wing bias in favour of drug legalization, white-washing Stalin's crimes, against reversal of Roe v Wade, and in favour of abortion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com