The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has requested X to withhold the OpIndia account worldwide, citing legal demands related to reported content.

Many other pro-Hindu and pro-BJP accounts have also received the same mail from X (Twitter) saying that the Pakistani government has sought to withhold some of their X posts.

Pakistanis and Kanglus are genuinely delusional. First, Kanglu Yunus lied about persecution of Hindus, “fact checked” OpIndia and then deleted his miserable tweet.

Now, Govt of Pakistan wants @OpIndia_com withheld worldwide.

Sad, delusional, miserable little bastard nation. pic.twitter.com/T3tFVcbQZe

— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) October 18, 2025

The notice, addressed to OpIndia’s editorial team, asserts that the platform’s content violates Pakistani laws, though specific details remain undisclosed. This move comes as no surprise given Pakistan’s history of internet censorship, including the blocking of social media platforms during the February 2024 national elections, justified by the government as a measure to ensure national security.

OpIndia, which has carved a niche for itself by challenging mainstream narratives and frequently critiquing Islamist ideologies and Pakistan’s policies, has faced criticism in the past.

Recent articles published by OpIndia have further intensified this tension. For instance, a March 4, 2025, report titled “Persecution of Hindus in Pakistan: HRCP Report Exposes Violence and Injustice” detailed the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan’s findings on forced conversions, mob violence, and institutional discrimination against Hindus, particularly in Sindh province, painting a grim picture of religious minorities’ plight. Another article, dated September 28, 2022, “Pakistan Officials Come in Support of Banned Islamist Outfit PFI,” exposed Pakistan’s support for the outlawed Popular Front of India (PFI) and its ties to global terror outfits, accusing Pakistani officials of rallying international backing for the group.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Not A Joke, Pakistan Govt Asks X (Twitter) To Ban OpIndia’s Account Worldwide appeared first on The Commune.

A rap song promoted by the Congress IT Cell as an expression of “Gen Z anger” against the Modi government has been revealed to be part of a Congress-sponsored paid campaign, according to an investigation by OpIndia. The viral rap song, performed by a struggling artist, portrays anti-government rhetoric and has been circulated widely on social media as the voice of India’s youth.

The video, shared by X user Ankit Mayank, who identifies himself as Rahul Gandhi’s “Babbar Sher,” described the song as: “So, Gen Z in India is now using music to expose and speak out against the fascist regime. Fiery rap song, must share. Interesting times are ahead.”

So GenZ in India is now using music to expose & speak against the fascist regime

Fiery rap song, must share. Interesting times ahead pic.twitter.com/RDdi4L6eCt

— Ankit Mayank (@mr_mayank) October 12, 2025

OpIndia’s investigation uncovered that the Congress party has been actively hiring rap songwriters, cartoonists, and influencers, including those in the food and travel niche, for the past three months to produce content critical of the government. The recruitment posts were published on LinkedIn by Tekendra Sharma, who confirmed to OpIndia that he was shortlisting candidates for Congress but is not a member of the party himself. Sharma admitted, “My job is to shortlist CVs and send them to the Congress party,” indicating the positions were directly created to generate anti-government content.

OpIndia attempted to contact Congress media chief Jairam Ramesh and spokesperson Pawan Khera for clarification regarding the recruitment and the nature of the campaign. More than 24 hours later, no response had been received. The rapper who produced the song remains unreachable.

Following the recruitment of rap songwriters, Congress’s YouTube channel has increasingly uploaded rap songs targeting a variety of issues, including PM Modi’s relationship with former US President Donald Trump.

One such song has gone viral for mocking the Prime Minister and highlighting alleged government failures. Another song, titled “वोट चोर, गद्दी छोड़” (Vote Thief, Leave the Throne), portrays Rahul Gandhi as a leader with a spotless image, reiterates claims of vote theft, and questions the Election Commission’s findings.

According to OpIndia, these examples suggest that Congress hired artists and content creators to produce and distribute anti-government messaging under the guise of authentic Gen Z expression. The outlet noted this is part of a broader pattern of Congress-sponsored social media campaigns, citing a previous “vote theft” campaign in which influencers were paid between ₹20,000 and ₹30,000 to create content amplifying Rahul Gandhi’s claims. Many participants later apologized after the orchestrated nature of the campaign was revealed.

OpIndia concluded that the so-called Gen Z anger showcased in these rap songs is largely manufactured and part of a paid effort by Congress to influence social media narratives, rather than an organic expression of youth sentiment.

(Source: OpIndia)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Congress ‘Gen Z Rap’ Campaign Against Modi Govt Was Paid Congress Campaign, OpIndia Investigation Reveals appeared first on The Commune.

A woman identifying herself as Divya Rana, a ‘Deputy Manager’ at The Times of India, unleashed a shocking tirade of threats and sexually violent abuse against OpIndia Assistant Editor Dibakar Dutta and his 70-year-old mother. The cause? A Facebook post he shared highlighting the death of a four-year-old girl from rabies.

The Post That Triggered the Fury

On 21 August 2025, Dibakar Dutta of OpIndia shared a post by commentator ‘The Skin Doctor’ about the death of a four-year-old, the daughter of a street vendor, in Bengaluru. The child had succumbed to rabies on 17 August 2025 after being mauled by stray dogs four months prior. The story had been reported by multiple major publications, including The Times of India itself.

Dutta’s caption read: “We failed you, little girl. ‘Dog activists’, campaigning to keep stray dogs on the street, will not squeak a word about it.”

This criticism of so-called “dog activists” was the spark that ignited the confrontation.

The Descent from ‘Journalist’ to Abuser

Divya Rana, whose Facebook profile identifies her as a Deputy Manager at The Times of India, descended into the comments.

She immediately adopted an authoritative tone, declaring the news “incorrect” and warning Dutta he would be “penalised by law for sharing unverified information.”

When Dutta challenged her and asked for proof, she responded with a poorly fabricated ‘seize and desist notice,’ seemingly generated by ChatGPT, directly in the comment thread. When Dutta repeatedly insisted she send this notice to his official email address for legal processing, her professional facade crumbled completely.

After threats of arrest and claims that a warrant had been “issued to Indian Express” failed to intimidate him, Rana resorted to pure vitriol.

The Graphic Threats and Abuse

The abuse, specifically targeted at Dutta’s mother, was exceptionally graphic and threatening. Screenshots of the exchange show Rana writing:

“Dibakar Dutta, is your mother a r*ndi who comes to quell your sexual thirst?”

“What is the rate of your mother?”

She referred to Dutta as the “son of a hij*a and randi.”

She vowed, “I will get your underwear removed and parade you naked.”

She claimed, “Harsh Verma is my father who is a judge. I will get your underwear removed and parade you naked.”

She added, “See, your mother is parading naked on the streets. Maderch*d, keep barking now.”

The abuse continued with personal attacks on Dutta’s appearance, calling him a “disgusting worm from the drain.”

Times Of India Denies Association

Dutta had tagged Times of India’s X handle and on 22 August 2025 afternoon, denied any association with Divya Rana. They replied saying, “@dibakardutta_ The person mentioned in your tweet is not employed with The Times of India. This appears to be a fake account impersonating a TOI staffer. Our legal team has taken note and will initiate appropriate action.”

@dibakardutta_ The person mentioned in your tweet is not employed with The Times of India. This appears to be a fake account impersonating a TOI staffer. Our legal team has taken note and will initiate appropriate action.

— The Times Of India (@timesofindia) August 22, 2025

The Core Issue: Power, Influence, and a Child’s Death

The incident transcends a mere online flame war. Rana’s threats explicitly invoked her alleged professional power at a major media house and, more seriously, the judicial power of her alleged father to “destroy” a critic.

Dutta’s central question remains: Why would someone claiming to be a senior journalist at a national newspaper react with such unhinged fury to a post mourning a child killed by rabies? The exchange suggests the post hit a nerve with Rana, placing her in the very category of activists Dutta criticized, those who passionately defend stray dogs but are perceived by some to remain silent on the human cost of attacks.

(With inputs from OpIndia & Dibakar Dutta’s X thread)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “TOI Deputy Manager” Unleashes Vulgar Abuse Against OpIndia Assistant Editor Over Post About Child’s Rabies Death appeared first on The Commune.

The Hinduphobia Tracker, launched by the Gavishti Foundation, is an initiative aimed at documenting religiously motivated hate crimes against Hindus both in India and globally. The foundation is led by Nupur J Sharma, editor-in-chief of OpIndia, and Rahul Roushan, its CEO. The tracker’s primary objective is to raise awareness about the persecution of Hindus, advocate for their rights, and provide a transparent and accurate record of incidents that reflect the ongoing bias and violence faced by Hindus based on their religious identity.

The tracker categorizes hate crimes into eight key areas, all thoroughly defined using international standards and conventions. These include hate crimes against women in relationships and sexual crimes, attacks that don’t result in death, attacks on Hindu religious symbols, restrictions or bans on Hindu practices, hate speech against Hindus, predatory proselytization, attacks on Hindu men for being associated with non-Hindu women, and attacks resulting in death. Each case is explained in detail to show how the incident fits into these categories and why it qualifies as a hate crime rooted in religious animosity.

At the time of release, the Hinduphobia Tracker recorded 1,314 hate crimes against Hindus since January 2023. Additionally, there are 191 undecided cases—where a crime is suspected to be a hate crime but lacks sufficient evidence to confirm the religious motive. Moreover, there are 589 cases pending review. These cases are analyzed with the goal of ensuring accuracy and transparency in the representation of incidents. The database is continuously updated as more information becomes available, with efforts to document as many hate crimes as possible.

The tracker operates a publicly accessible database, where users can explore recorded cases, analyze data through visualizations and charts, and interact with a map that marks locations of each reported crime. The interactive map displays hate crimes with distinct symbols based on their category, and users can click on these symbols for summaries and detailed case information. The database can be filtered by categories, time periods, and keywords, offering a personalized experience for individuals who wish to explore specific types of hate crimes or focus on a particular location.

The website also provides an option for individuals to submit new hate crimes. Users can report additional cases by filling out an online form, providing supporting documents like newspaper clippings, videos, or official reports. These submissions are reviewed by the Hinduphobia Tracker team to determine whether they meet the criteria for being classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. This feature encourages active participation from the public, helping to build a comprehensive record of anti-Hindu hate incidents.

One of the key goals of the Hinduphobia Tracker is to create a working definition of Hinduphobia—a term that has evolved to encompass various negative attitudes, actions, and prejudices against Hindus. According to the tracker, Hinduphobia includes any behavior, speech, or attitude that stems from hatred, fear, prejudice, or animosity toward Hindus. It is directed not just toward individuals but also Hindu communities, their religious practices, symbols, temples, and cultural values. This prejudice can manifest through violence, discrimination, dehumanization, or hate speech, and can be perpetuated through various forms of media, including academic, institutional, and political discourse.

The tracker’s goal is not only to document incidents but also to advocate against the biases and discrimination faced by Hindus. By accurately recording and categorizing these hate crimes, it aims to represent the severity and scale of Hinduphobia globally. The Hinduphobia Tracker provides a platform for advocacy and education, helping to raise awareness of the challenges Hindus face and ensuring that their stories are heard.

Additionally, the tracker has a dispute resolution process, allowing users to challenge the inclusion or categorization of cases within the database. The database is continuously updated, and users can submit additional information or raise concerns regarding any cases listed. This openness to community involvement ensures that the platform remains dynamic and responsive to new developments.

While the current database focuses on crimes from January 2023 onwards, there are plans to expand its coverage in the future. The Hinduphobia Tracker’s mission is to provide a transparent, comprehensive, and accurate representation of the hate crimes targeting Hindus, contributing to the broader conversation around human rights, religious tolerance, and the protection of vulnerable communities worldwide.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post A Database Of Hindu Hate Crimes: OpIndia’s Nupur J Sharma And Rahul Roushan Launch Hinduphobia Tracker To Document Hate Crimes Against Hindus appeared first on The Commune.

According to a new dossier by OpIndia, Wikipedia should be considered a publisher and subject to Indian laws. The report challenges Wikipedia’s claim of being a neutral, volunteer-based platform, arguing that its significant editorial control and financial arrangement with contributors position it firmly as a publisher. This scrutiny comes as Wikipedia resists compliance with Indian regulations, suggesting it avoids legal responsibilities by portraying itself as a mere intermediary.

The dossier highlights the need for Wikipedia to adhere to the same legal standards as other publishers operating in India.

OpIndia Dossier

The news website OpIndia has published a detailed dossier that aims to disprove the ‘fact‘ that Wikipedia operates as a free, editorially neutral encyclopaedia reliant on the voluntary efforts of unpaid contributors, as claimed by the Wikimedia Foundation. The dossier mainly focuses on Wikipedia’s content related to India, Indian laws, and the implications of treating Wikipedia as a publisher, making it directly liable for its content on its platform.

Wikipedia, managed by the Wikimedia Foundation, presents itself as an open, crowd-sourced platform where volunteers across the globe collaboratively create and curate content. It argues that it operates as an intermediary, not a publisher, exempting it from many legal responsibilities, especially under Indian law. However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that Wikipedia functions more like a publisher than an intermediary, exercising significant editorial control and paying certain contributors. This distinction is crucial in determining whether it should be subject to Indian laws. Here’s why Wikipedia should be considered a publisher and thus, legally accountable.

A Brief Look At Wikipedia’s Legal Stance

Wikimedia Foundation, the parent organization of Wikipedia, frequently claims immunity from various national laws by asserting that it is a neutral intermediary that hosts content generated by independent users. This was demonstrated in 2023 when a Delhi court issued a summons to Wikipedia, BBC, and Internet Archive concerning the banned Modi documentary by the BBC.

Wikipedia and BBC argued that the Delhi court had no jurisdiction over them since they were foreign entities. While the Internet Archive complied by removing the documentary, Wikimedia resisted, indicating that Indian laws do not apply to its platform.

The Foundation’s response to the Indian government’s 2018 Intermediary Guidelines, which sought to regulate online content, further underscores its unwillingness to submit to Indian legal scrutiny. Wikimedia expressed concerns over the guidelines, which would have held intermediaries accountable for failing to remove unlawful content. It argued that such rules would turn the internet from an open platform into a tool of automated censorship, which it said would stifle free speech.

The Reality Behind Wikimedia’s Claims Of ‘Neutrality’

Wikimedia Foundation claims that it has no editorial control over the content published on its platform, maintaining that it is purely a volunteer-driven site. However, this portrayal is misleading. The Foundation explicitly funds certain editors, administrators, and contributors through grants, and has a clear editorial line. For instance, the page on “Democratic Backsliding in India” was the result of a funded project under the Wikimedia Education program, which casts doubt on the platform’s claim of neutrality.

Furthermore, Wikimedia actively pays certain editors and administrators, allowing them to shape the platform’s editorial policies. This level of control means that Wikipedia is no longer merely a neutral intermediary but is instead taking a direct role in the creation and promotion of specific content. When a platform exercises such editorial oversight, it can no longer claim to be a passive intermediary.

The Case For Wikipedia As A Publisher

Under Indian law, a publisher is defined as an entity that performs a significant role in determining what content is made available to the public. A publisher, unlike an intermediary, exercises editorial control and decides which sources to include, which content to publish, and how to present that information. Wikipedia clearly fits this definition.

• Editorial Oversight and Paid Contributions: Wikipedia’s content is not purely volunteer-driven. The Foundation not only pays editors but also funds specific projects that shape the editorial direction of the platform. For example, content related to socio-political issues, like the article mentioned above on India’s democratic status, reflects a specific editorial stance that is not necessarily neutral.
• Censorship and Control of Sources: Wikipedia’s editorial policies restrict including specific sources, especially non-left-leaning viewpoints. This selective censorship demonstrates that the platform curates content to a particular narrative. For instance, police and court statements are often disregarded as unreliable, while left-leaning sources are disproportionately favoured.
• Intermediary vs. Publisher: Under Indian law, an intermediary is a platform that enables users to create, upload, share, or modify information without exercising editorial oversight. Wikipedia’s editorial practices, however, disqualify it from this category. The platform decides what is notable or relevant, rejects certain sources, and bans contributors who do not adhere to its editorial standards.

This level of editorial control places Wikipedia squarely in the publisher category. By shaping content and promoting specific viewpoints, it assumes the responsibilities of a publisher and should be held accountable.

How Wikimedia Evades Indian Laws

Wikimedia’s reluctance to comply with Indian laws is rooted in its refusal to acknowledge its role as a publisher. This avoidance is evident in its resistance to India’s Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) rules and its refusal to open an office in India. By operating without an Indian office, Wikimedia avoids filing financial disclosures or adhering to Indian regulations regarding foreign entities.

In its response to India’s Intermediary Guidelines, Wikimedia expressed concern over the cost of surveillance and compliance. It argued that complying with Indian laws would place an undue financial burden on its operations. However, Wikimedia’s own financial disclosures show that a significant portion of its revenue is spent on grants to editors, writers, and administrators, making this argument weak. The Foundation allocates millions of dollars to its editorial activities, contradicting its claim that compliance with Indian laws would be financially unsustainable.

Wikimedia also argued that the requirement to remove illegal content within a short time frame would hinder Wikipedia’s collaborative model. However, this concern is less about operational difficulties and more about maintaining editorial control without accountability. Wikimedia is reluctant to subject its editorial decisions to Indian legal scrutiny, preferring instead to operate under the guise of being an intermediary.

Wikipedia’s Argument For Global Neutrality

Wikimedia contends that its global reach and collaborative model make it impossible to adhere to country-specific laws. According to the Foundation, implementing content removal based on the legal requirements of individual countries would create “problematic gaps” in its content, as changes made in one country would affect the platform’s global audience.

This argument is deeply flawed. While it is true that Wikipedia has a global user base, its content is far from universally neutral. The platform’s editorial decisions are influenced by a small group of editors and administrators, many of whom are paid by the Foundation. This hierarchical model undermines the claim that Wikipedia is a truly crowd-sourced, neutral platform. In reality, the platform operates more like a traditional media organization, with clear editorial guidelines and selective content moderation.

Moreover, Wikimedia’s concerns about censorship are hypocritical, given that it already engages in selective censorship. The platform’s editorial policies prevent certain viewpoints from being published, which effectively amounts to censorship. Yet, when Indian laws require the removal of illegal content, Wikimedia cries foul, claiming that such requirements would stifle free speech.

Wikimedia’s Refusal To Open An Indian Office

One of Wikimedia’s most telling strategies to evade Indian law is its refusal to open an office in India. By not having a physical presence in the country, Wikimedia avoids being subject to Indian jurisdiction. It does not file returns in India, does not adhere to FCRA regulations, and does not account for payments made to Indian editors and administrators. This lack of accountability allows Wikimedia to operate with impunity, even as it promotes content that may violate Indian laws.

Wikimedia argues that opening an office in India would create an undue financial burden. However, given the millions it spends annually on grants and editorial activities, this claim is difficult to take seriously. The real reason Wikimedia avoids establishing an office in India is to evade legal scrutiny and continue operating without oversight.

The Need For Legal Accountability

The crux of the issue is that Wikipedia cannot claim to be an intermediary when it exercises significant editorial control. As a publisher, it should be subject to the same legal obligations as other media organizations. Indian laws, particularly the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, apply to digital media and publishers of news and current affairs. These rules are designed to hold publishers accountable for the content they produce and distribute.

Wikipedia fits the definition of a publisher under these guidelines. It curates and promotes content, exercises editorial oversight, and pays contributors to create and edit articles. Therefore, it should be held to the same standards as other publishers, including compliance with Indian laws regarding content moderation and financial transparency.

Last Word

The Wikimedia Foundation’s claim that Wikipedia is a neutral intermediary does not hold up under scrutiny. The platform exercises significant editorial control, funds specific projects, and selectively promotes certain viewpoints. This makes it a publisher, not an intermediary. As such, Wikipedia should be subject to Indian laws, including regulations regarding content removal, financial disclosures, and compliance with FCRA rules.

By refusing to comply with Indian laws and avoiding establishing a physical presence in the country, Wikimedia undermines its claim of neutrality and transparency. It is time for Wikipedia to be held accountable as a publisher and adhere to the same legal standards as other media organizations operating in India.

(With inputs from OpIndia)

Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Here’s Why Wikipedia Should Be Considered A Publisher And Subject To Indian Laws appeared first on The Commune.

Wikipedia’s editors and content administrators are at the centre of a new OpIndia dossier that challenges Wikipedia’s claim of being a free and neutral encyclopedia. The report exposes a significant Left bias in Wikipedia’s coverage, particularly concerning India and its laws. It also argues that the systemic exclusion of right-wing sources undermines the platform’s claim to neutrality.

With only 435 active administrators wielding disproportionate power over content and contributor access, the dossier questions the integrity of Wikipedia’s editors and their supposed commitment to a balanced perspective.

OpIndia Dossier

The news website OpIndia has published a detailed dossier that aims to disprove the ‘fact‘ that Wikipedia operates as a free, editorially neutral encyclopaedia reliant on the voluntary efforts of unpaid contributors, as claimed by the Wikimedia Foundation. The dossier mainly focuses on Wikipedia’s content related to India, Indian laws, and the implications of treating Wikipedia as a publisher, making it directly liable for the content on its platform.

The dossier highlights research that uncovers a pronounced Left bias on Wikipedia. Three cited studies conclude that Wikipedia inherently leans left, contradicting its “Neutral Point of View” (NPOV) policy. While NPOV suggests that all views would be represented, the reality is that the platform restricts right-wing (non-left) sources from being used, labelling them as unreliable. Wikipedia’s editors and admins, who hold disproportionate power, ensure these sources are blacklisted, skewing the content towards left-leaning perspectives.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has also confirmed this bias, stating that it distorts the platform’s representation of reality.

Furthermore, Wikipedia’s structure grants enormous power to a small group of editors and administrators. Out of the millions of contributors, only 435 active administrators have the authority to ban editors, blacklist sources, and determine which content stays on the platform. These administrators often receive grants from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects, undermining the claim that Wikipedia operates as a free, open platform for all.

Let us look at Wikipedia’s left bias in detail.

Prior Research On Wikipedia’s Left Bias

The Manhattan Institute’s research, conducted by David Rozado and published in June 2024, provides an in-depth analysis of the ideological bias present in Wikipedia’s English-language articles. The study investigates whether Wikipedia exhibits political bias and assesses the potential implications of such biases on the content’s neutrality.

Key Findings:

• Bias in Sentiment: The research reveals a noticeable left-leaning bias in Wikipedia articles. It finds that public figures and institutions associated with right-of-center ideologies are portrayed with more negative sentiment compared to their left-leaning counterparts. Negative emotions such as anger and disgust are more frequently associated with right-leaning figures, whereas positive emotions like joy are more commonly linked to left-leaning figures.
• Impact on AI Models: The study also highlights that this ideological bias in Wikipedia articles may influence widely used AI systems. OpenAI’s language models, which draw on Wikipedia content, may reflect these biases in their outputs, suggesting that Wikipedia’s content can shape and perpetuate biases in AI applications.
• Neutral Point of View (NPOV) Policy: Wikipedia’s NPOV policy is intended to ensure impartiality and neutrality in its articles. However, Rozado’s research indicates that this policy is not fully achieving its goal. The study’s results suggest that Wikipedia articles are not as neutral as intended, with a significant skew towards left-leaning perspectives.
• Media Sources and Sentiment: The research further analyzes the sentiment associated with media sources cited on Wikipedia. It finds that Wikipedia articles tend to reflect more positive sentiment towards left-leaning news media institutions compared to right-leaning ones. This disparity is less pronounced when it comes to think tanks, as these entities do not evoke the same level of emotional response as media organizations.
• Content Analysis Methodology: The study employs computational content analysis using modern language models for content annotation. This method quantitatively assesses the sentiment and emotional tone related to politically charged terms and figures in Wikipedia articles. The analysis confirms that Wikipedia’s content exhibits a systematic bias in portraying political ideologies and figures.
• Blacklisting of Alternative Views: The research suggests that Wikipedia’s bias is not limited to the portrayal of political figures but also extends to the types of sources cited. The platform tends to exclude or downplay sources that offer alternate viewpoints, contributing to the overall skewed presentation of information. This exclusionary practice further reinforces the perceived left-leaning bias of Wikipedia.

In 2020, The Critic, a British political and cultural magazine, published a research paper by two American academics titled “The Left-Wing Bias of Wikipedia.” This study scrutinizes Wikipedia’s internal policies—verifiability and Neutral Point of View (NPOV)—to highlight how these policies might inadvertently contribute to a left-leaning bias on the platform.

Key Findings:

• Failure of Internal Policies: Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy demands that content be based on reliable, independent sources known for fact-checking and accuracy. The NPOV policy requires articles to present all significant viewpoints proportionally. Despite these policies, the research finds that Wikipedia articles often reflect a left-leaning bias. This bias arises because sources and viewpoints deemed reliable are often influenced by the prevailing leftist perspectives of Wikipedia’s editors.
• Bias in Source Selection: The paper reveals that Wikipedia’s editors tend to accept left-leaning sources while dismissing conservative ones. At the time of the research, 16 conservative sources had been deprecated, meaning they were largely disallowed from being cited, compared to only one leftist source. This discrepancy illustrates a bias in the selection of reliable sources.
• Discrepancy in Source Treatment: The research further highlights that left-wing sources are less likely to face scrutiny or deprecation than conservative sources. An attempt to deprecate the left-leaning site AlterNet faced resistance, with arguments emphasizing its value in providing progressive viewpoints despite some concerns about its reliability. In contrast, right-leaning sources face more stringent evaluations and are often deemed unreliable.
• Bias in Arbitration Enforcement: The study finds that Wikipedia’s arbitration process, meant to resolve disputes and enforce neutrality, also reflects bias. Discretionary sanctions, a set of powers granted to Wikipedia administrators, can be used to block or sanction editors based on subjective judgments. The research shows that right-leaning editors are significantly more likely to be sanctioned compared to their left-leaning counterparts, with a ratio of over six times more likely to face sanctions in contentious political topics.
• Influence of Wikipedia Administrators: The research suggests that Wikipedia administrators’ attitudes contribute to the platform’s bias. Administrators and Wikipedia’s parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, have expressed views that show little tolerance for right-wing perspectives. For instance, during the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, candidates were asked about far-right groups, and the majority viewed them as a significant problem, reflecting a bias against right-leaning viewpoints.
• Contradiction with Wikipedia’s Stated Policies: The paper critiques how Wikipedia’s stance on neutrality is contradicted by its actions. An example is the Wikimedia Foundation’s 2020 endorsement of Black Lives Matter, which rejected neutrality on issues of racial justice, further indicating a departure from Wikipedia’s core neutrality policy.
• Impact on Content and Article Integrity: The research demonstrates that Wikipedia’s left-leaning bias affects the accuracy and integrity of its content. For instance, the paper highlights how hoax material supporting a favoured viewpoint might go unnoticed while negative information about individuals with unfavourable views is scrutinized less rigorously. An example given is the page on psychologist Linda Gottfredson, which contained fabricated quotes for an extended period due to the editorial bias against her.

Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, has consistently criticized the platform for its ideological bias, particularly towards liberal viewpoints. In a 2020 article, Sanger argued that Wikipedia has abandoned its neutrality policy, citing examples where it treats Democratic figures and issues with less scrutiny compared to Republicans. He pointed out disparities in how scandals involving Barack Obama are omitted while controversies surrounding Donald Trump are extensively covered. Sanger criticized Wikipedia for endorsing establishment views and neglecting opposing perspectives in areas such as politics, religion, and science.

Sanger continued his critique in 2021 and 2023. In 2021, he examined Wikipedia’s handling of politically contentious topics like Donald Trump’s impeachment and the Hunter Biden story. He argued that Wikipedia displayed a clear bias towards Democratic viewpoints, failing to present both sides of the debate fairly. Sanger asserted that the articles were so biased that they could be considered propaganda rather than neutral information.

Throughout his articles, Sanger claims that Wikipedia’s adherence to its Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy is nonexistent. He argues that a truly neutral Wikipedia would present both positive and negative aspects of all viewpoints, but this is not reflected in its current content. Sanger has also criticized Wikipedia’s leadership, alleging that there is no intention to address or rectify this bias.

Pirate Wires

Ashley Rindsberg’s research for Pirate Wires, titled “How Wikipedia Launders Regime Propaganda,” scrutinizes the ideological bias in Wikipedia’s content, particularly its reliance on left-leaning sources. Rindsberg argues that Wikipedia’s editors and administrators systematically blacklist conservative media sources while favoring left-leaning ones, thus affecting the neutrality of its content.

Rindsberg’s analysis begins with an example from July 2024, when a debate erupted over Kamala Harris’s role as the Border Czar after President Biden’s exit from the presidential race. Despite the initial inclusion of Harris’s name in the Wikipedia page on Border Czars, it was quickly removed following the political controversy. Rindsberg highlights how this led to an edit war on the Talk Page, with sources disputing Harris’s appointment being cited, while counter-evidence was ignored. This incident exemplifies how Wikipedia’s consensus often aligns with the priorities of the Democratic Party and its supporting media.

The research critiques Wikipedia’s reliance on “reliable sources,” emphasizing that conservative news outlets are often categorized as unreliable or deprecated. Rindsberg notes that Wikipedia’s reliability guidelines favor mainstream and left-leaning media, such as ABC, CBS, NBC, The Atlantic, Vox, Mother Jones, and The Guardian, which are marked as reliable. In contrast, conservative sources like Fox News, The Federalist, and The Post Millennial are deemed unreliable. Rindsberg also points out that even state-owned media like China Daily and Xinhua, which promote government propaganda, are given a “yellow” rating for “no consensus,” while Al Jazeera, owned by the authoritarian state of Qatar, receives a green rating for reliability.

How Wikipedia Works

Wikipedia, operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, functions through a structured hierarchy that influences its content. The Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit organization, oversees Wikipedia, which is governed by a ten-member Board of Trustees, with Jimmy Wales as Chairman Emeritus. Despite Wikipedia’s claims of non-control over content, Wales has historically held significant influence, as noted in a 2002 letter where he stated that final policy decisions rested with him.

Wikipedia’s content management involves various levels of authority:

• Editors: These are the general contributors who can make changes to Wikipedia pages. Editors may be registered users or contribute anonymously via IP addresses. They hold the lowest level of authority and can be banned or overridden by higher authorities.
• Bureaucrats: Introduced in 2004, bureaucrats (or Crats) have a limited role, primarily appointing or removing administrators and other bureaucrats based on Arbitration Committee instructions. There are currently 15 anonymous bureaucrats.
• Administrators: With 855 administrator accounts, 435 of whom are active, administrators have substantial control over Wikipedia content. They can alter content, ban users, protect pages from editing, delete pages, and resolve disputes. Their real identities are mostly anonymous.
• Arbitration Committee (ArbCom): ArbCom functions as Wikipedia’s supreme judicial body, handling complex disputes that the community cannot resolve. Established by Jimmy Wales to extend his former decision-making role, ArbCom members, or Arbs, can impose binding decisions, including bans and blocks on users. The current committee consists of 10 active members, who often remain anonymous.

Historically, Wikipedia evolved from Nupedia, a project co-founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Nupedia’s rigorous content approval process was less effective than Wikipedia’s more open model. Sanger has criticized the transition from Nupedia to Wikipedia for prioritizing volume over authenticity, leading to a shift in editorial control to largely anonymous individuals.

The Wikimedia Foundation’s funding is a fraction of its revenue, with a significant portion allocated to salaries and grants for Wikipedia’s editors and administrators. This expenditure impacts the platform’s neutrality and control.

The selective blacklisting of sources, including prominent conservative and non-left media, reinforces Wikipedia’s ideological bias. For example, Indian sources like OpIndia are blacklisted, while left-leaning sources such as TheWire, despite documented issues with misinformation, are cited favourably. This selective citation and source deprecation ensure a left-leaning bias in content, as Wikipedia’s editors and administrators shape articles to reflect a specific ideological stance.

Despite Wikipedia’s claim of a neutral point of view, its hierarchical structure and biased source management contribute to a skewed representation of information. The platform’s reliance on a limited pool of “reliable” sources, combined with its editorial control, ensures that content often aligns with left-leaning perspectives, impacting its neutrality and accuracy.

Conclusion

Wikipedia’s editors wield significant control over the content and perspectives that shape the platform’s vast repository of knowledge. The dossier highlights how the free encyclopedia’s editorial policy fosters a notable Left bias, vandalising its purported commitment to neutrality. By systematically restricting right-wing sources and privileging left-leaning perspectives, such admins and editors have skewed the representation of information, challenging the notion of the platform as a truly impartial encyclopedia.

As these admins continue to exert their influence and enforce these biases, it becomes increasingly crucial to scrutinize the accuracy and balance of the content presented, questioning whether Wikipedia can genuinely uphold its claim of being a free, unbiased source of information.

(With inputs from OpIndia)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post How The Left Bias Of Wikipedia’s Editors And Admins Results In Censorship  appeared first on The Commune.

The news website OpIndia has published a detailed dossier that aims to disprove the ‘fact’ that Wikipedia operates as a free, editorially neutral encyclopaedia reliant on the voluntary efforts of unpaid contributors, as claimed by the Wikimedia Foundation. The dossier particularly focuses on Wikipedia’s content related to India, Indian laws, and the implications of treating Wikipedia as a publisher, which would make it directly liable for the content on its platform.

The dossier delves into the claims made by the Wikimedia Foundation regarding Wikipedia’s neutrality, reliance on reliable sources, and its nonprofit model, which is said to be sustained by donations. It scrutinizes the grants Wikimedia receives and the entities it funds, especially those operating in India, despite the Foundation’s lack of official presence in the country. This analysis assesses how the Wikimedia Foundation supports entities that align with its business goals in India without being registered there.

The dossier highlights research that uncovers a pronounced Left bias on Wikipedia. Three cited studies conclude that Wikipedia inherently leans left, contradicting its “Neutral Point of View” (NPOV) policy. While NPOV suggests that all views would be represented, the reality is that the platform restricts right-wing (non-left) sources from being used, labeling them as unreliable. Administrators and editors, who hold disproportionate power, ensure these sources are blacklisted, skewing the content towards left-leaning perspectives. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has also confirmed this bias, stating that it distorts the platform’s representation of reality.

Money Trail

The dossier also investigates the financial links between the Wikimedia Foundation and influential entities like the Open Society Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Tides Foundation, and Google. These organizations provide millions in funding, with projects like Abstract Wikipedia potentially expanding Wikimedia’s influence. Tides Foundation, linked to anti-India activities, funds groups such as Hindus for Human Rights and Equality Labs, which undermine India’s interests. The Wikimedia Foundation, though not registered in India, continues to collect donations and fund Indian NGOs, raising concerns about its operations.

Let us look at these in detail.

Google Foundation & Tides Foundation

In 2010, Google made a $2 million donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, widely reported as a generous grant. However, the donation was made not directly by Google but through the Google Inc. Charity Fund at the Tides Foundation. This detail, outlined in Wikimedia’s 2010 press release, adds an extra layer to the narrative, revealing Google’s use of intermediaries to distribute its charitable funds.

The Google Foundation, created in 2005, was Google’s charitable arm, focusing on education, economic opportunity, inclusion, and crisis response. It was a major donor to the Tides Foundation, a donor-advised fund known for supporting left-leaning organizations. From 2007 to 2016, the Google Foundation contributed $70 million to groups like Tides and other progressive causes. However, in 2018, Google dissolved its foundation and transferred its remaining $50 million in assets to the Tides Foundation. Despite dissolving the foundation, Google retained control over where the money went by “advising” Tides on grants.

This arrangement allowed Google to remain influential in funding leftist NGOs while avoiding direct association. The Tides Foundation, which often operates donor-directed funds with undisclosed recipients, has since been acting on Google’s behalf. Moreover, the relationship between Google, Tides Foundation, and Wikimedia Foundation deepened after 2010, as Google became a major benefactor of Wikimedia, continuing to provide grants even after 2022 through Google.org and the Google Matching Gifts Foundation. The partnership between Google and Wikimedia is reinforced by the near-total integration of Wikipedia content into Google’s platforms, highlighting the close and strategic nature of this connection.

Wikimedia Endowment Fund

The Wikimedia Endowment Fund was established in January 2016 as a permanent source of funding to ensure the long-term survival of Wikipedia. The goal was to raise $100 million by 2026, with the fund set up as a Collective Action Fund at the Tides Foundation. This fund would support Wikimedia’s projects, with an advisory board appointed by Tides after being nominated by Wikimedia. Either Tides or Wikimedia could choose to transfer the endowment to the Wikimedia Foundation or other selected charities.

The media portrayed the endowment as a critical effort to keep Wikipedia running, with Wikimedia and figures like Jimmy Wales and Lisa Gruwell emphasizing its necessity for long-term survival. The Guardian reported it as a measure to reduce reliance on annual donations, even though it started with less than $1 million. The rhetoric gave the impression that Wikipedia was dependent on small donations, operating frugally, and free from corporate influence.

In reality, Wikimedia reached its $100 million fundraising goal by 2021, five years ahead of schedule. The endowment had grown to $140 million by 2024. Major donors included Amazon, Google, Facebook, and George Soros, with notable contributions from figures like Peter Baldwin and Lisbet Rausing. The fund operated under the Tides Foundation until July 2023, when it became an independent charity. Despite surpassing its original financial goal, Wikimedia extended its donation drive to secure even more funds, announcing a new multi-year fundraising campaign.

By 2023, Wikimedia’s overall revenue exceeded $180 million, and research showed that the foundation had enough money to keep Wikipedia running for potentially a century, even if it stopped earning further revenue. Despite this, Wikimedia continued to aggressively solicit donations, particularly from Indian users, using messages that suggested the site’s survival was at risk.

The links between the Wikimedia Endowment Fund, Wikimedia Foundation, and Tides Foundation raise concerns about how funds are distributed. Reports indicate that the Tides Foundation and Wikimedia have exchanged grants, sometimes marked as “anonymous” donations, using donor-advised funds that don’t require full disclosure. This system allows Wikimedia to disperse grants, possibly to left-leaning organizations, while publicly emphasizing the need to support Wikipedia. Despite having enough funds to sustain Wikipedia, Wikimedia continues to collect money, which it may use to further its business and ideological interests under the guise of preserving free knowledge.

Wikimedia Foundation

The Wikimedia Foundation aggressively campaigns for donations from individuals and corporations, often asking for small contributions to “keep Wikipedia alive.” In September 2024, for instance, Wikimedia solicited Indians for donations as low as Rs 25, with claims that the platform would remain unsold. As a 501(c)(3) charity, Wikimedia is exempt from federal and state income taxes. Over the years, its assets have grown significantly, from an initial $57,000 in 2004 to $231 million by June 2021, with an additional $100 million in its endowment. By the end of the 2022-2023 fiscal year, the foundation’s assets had risen to nearly $255 million.

A substantial part of Wikimedia’s revenue comes from individual donors. In the 2022-2023 fiscal year, the foundation received donations from over 7.5 million individuals, with the average donation being $11.38. In addition to individual donations, Wikimedia has consistently received grants from various foundations. Since 2008, notable contributions include a $40,000 grant from the Open Society Institute, a $500,000 grant from Vinod and Neeru Khosla, and a $3 million grant from the Sloan Foundation. These grants supported various initiatives, such as creating a printable version of Wikipedia and purchasing hardware.

In 2009, Wikimedia received additional grants totaling millions from foundations like the Stanton Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Omidyar Network. Google also contributed $2 million in 2010, while the Sloan Foundation authorized another $3 million in 2011. That same year, Wikimedia received $3.6 million from the Stanton Foundation, marking its largest grant at the time. The Brin Wojcicki Foundation also donated $500,000 in 2011.

Between 2012 and 2015, the foundation continued to receive significant funding, including $1.25 million from Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin, a $5 million anonymous donation in 2014, and a $449,636 grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Additionally, Wikimedia received funding from the Monarch Fund, Arcadia Fund, and Stavros Niarchos Foundation to support initiatives like Wikipedia Zero. In 2015, it secured a grant from the Knight Foundation to develop the controversial “Knowledge Engine.” Google contributed $1.1 million in 2019, and the Sloan Foundation provided another $3 million in 2017. Apart from these grants, large corporations like Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Adobe are also significant donors, alongside major foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation.

These grants are separate from the funds Wikimedia receives for its endowment, further boosting its financial reserves.

Wikimedia Foundation and Tides Foundation

The Wikimedia Foundation has been dispersing grants to several organizations, including NGOs and foundations, many of which have agendas that extend beyond Wikipedia’s scope. A significant number of these grants, as noted, appear to align with left-leaning or even radical-left ideologies, raising questions about Wikipedia’s own ideological bias. These donations are intertwined with the Tides Foundation, a controversial entity due to its financial opacity, and its related arm, Tides Advocacy.

Wikimedia’s relationship with the Tides Foundation began with the establishment of the Wikimedia Endowment, hosted by Tides. The foundation’s financial records indicate regular transfers, beginning with $5 million annually starting in 2017, intended for the Endowment Fund. However, in addition to this, Wikimedia has also transferred larger sums to Tides, often without clear explanation. For instance, in 2019, Wikimedia sent $8.72 million to Tides Advocacy, a related but distinct organization. This occurred around the same time Amanda Keton, previously CEO of Tides Advocacy, became General Counsel for Wikimedia.

Despite the substantial transfers to Tides, there is limited transparency about these transactions. For example, in 2020, Wikimedia transferred over $5 million to Tides for its endowment but also sent $4.5 million to create a “Knowledge Equity Fund” aimed at addressing racial inequities in access to free knowledge. The full extent of fees paid to Tides for managing these funds remains undisclosed, sparking concerns about how the money is being used.

In 2021, IRS filings revealed that Wikimedia provided grants to Tides Foundation ($516,650) and Tides Advocacy ($300,000), but offered no specific details regarding their purpose. Wikimedia continues to send funds to Tides, as seen in 2022 when it transferred nearly $1.5 million, yet the exact breakdown of how these funds are utilized remains opaque. A critical issue is the lack of transparency regarding these financial interactions, as Tides, through its donor-advised funds, allows anonymous donors to direct their contributions, which in turn makes it difficult to trace how donations are allocated.

Furthermore, Tides has been a recipient of donations from major entities like Google, but the details of how these funds are used remain unclear. Despite repeated donations of $5 million from Wikimedia, these contributions are not consistently listed in Tides’ public reports, adding to the complexity of following the financial trail. The connection between Wikimedia and Tides also involves personnel crossovers, such as Amanda Keton’s move from Tides to Wikimedia, raising concerns about conflicts of interest and transparency.

Wikimedia’s extensive financial relationship with Tides, an organization known for its lack of transparency, seems at odds with Wikimedia’s stated commitment to openness. The fact that both organizations donate money to each other without clear explanations has led to suspicions about the true purposes of these financial dealings, especially given the foundation’s claims about needing funds to keep Wikipedia running despite its substantial financial reserves.

Tides Foundation Funds Anti-Hindu Narratives

The Tides Foundation is a major pass-through organization that channels funds from anonymous donors to left-leaning nonprofits. Founded in 1976, it has distributed over $2.6 billion in grants, with significant backing from donors such as George Soros and major foundations like Ford and Rockefeller. The Foundation uses donor-advised funds (DAFs), which obscure the original donor’s identity. Tides has been criticized for its lack of transparency, particularly in its financial relationships with organizations like Wikimedia Foundation.

Tides also funds various controversial causes, including anti-Israel and pro-Hamas groups. Recent reports highlight its support for organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace and Palestine Legal, which have been involved in protests against Israel. Tides Foundation’s funding also extends to groups involved in anti-India narratives, such as Hindus for Human Rights, which received a $266,000 donation in 2020. This opaque funding mechanism and the controversial causes it supports have sparked significant criticism and scrutiny.

What & Who They Fund

The Tides Foundation, alongside the Tides Center, has been involved in several controversies related to its funding activities. Most recently, they have been linked to funding protests in U.S. college campuses that are anti-Israel and pro-Hamas. This has raised concerns due to the involvement of organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow, both of which receive backing from the Tides Foundation. Notably, George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) also fund these groups.

Reports suggest that funding for these protests also comes from high-profile donors like David Rockefeller Jr., who is associated with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The Tides Foundation has received significant financial support from this fund and has contributed around USD 500,000 to Jewish Voice for Peace over the past five years. This organization is noted for its anti-Zionist stance.

Additionally, the Tides Foundation supports other groups like Adalah Justice Project and Palestine Legal. These organizations have been involved in providing legal support to protesters and mobilizing against what they describe as genocide. Tides Foundation’s support for these groups dates back to 2013 and 2016, respectively.

There are also allegations that Soros has funneled substantial sums to pro-Hamas groups through OSF, with reports indicating over $15 million since 2016. This includes financial support to groups justifying Hamas’s actions against Israel. Instances of anti-Semitic slogans and other controversial activities have been linked to these funded protests.

Another area of concern is the Tides Foundation’s donation to Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR), which has been criticized for its anti-India and anti-Hindu stances. Islamist advocacy groups founded HfHR and has been involved in anti-India activities. The Tides Foundation contributed $266,000 to HfHR in 2020, which is significant considering the organization’s controversial positions.

The Tides Foundation’s financial contributions extend to various other entities in India as well, such as the Association for India’s Development (AID) and the Aman Public Charitable Trust. AID has supported Binayak Sen, a figure convicted of sedition, while Aman has connections to organizations like NewsClick, which faces accusations of accepting Chinese funding to disrupt Indian sovereignty.

The Tides Foundation, along with its partner organizations like the Tides Center, has been implicated in several controversies, particularly regarding its funding activities. Notably, the Foundation has been linked to pro-Hamas protests at U.S. universities through its support for organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow, both of which receive backing from the Tides Foundation. George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) also funds these groups, highlighting a connection between prominent donors and controversial causes.

In addition to its U.S. activities, the Tides Foundation’s funding has raised concerns in India. It has been associated with groups and individuals that have been involved in contentious activities against the Indian government. For instance, the Tides Foundation has funded organizations like Adalah Justice Project and Palestine Legal, which are known for their legal support to anti-Israel protesters. Additionally, the Foundation’s financial support for Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR) and groups with anti-India and anti-Hindu positions has been criticized.

The Rajiv Gandhi Foundation (RGF) also received significant funds from the People’s Republic of China and subsequently launched studies favoring Chinese interests. The Ford Foundation, which has links with Tides, also contributed to organizations like Sabrang Communication and Publishing, managed by Teesta Setalvad, who has been involved in controversies related to communalism and anti-India activities.

Alliance India, which has worked with Tides, is chaired by Dr. SY Quraishi, known for controversial views against the Indian government and certain aspects of Indian culture. The Foundation’s connection with Alliance India underscores its ties with organizations that have been critical of India.

Further controversies involve the Stop Adani campaign, backed by the Bob Brown Foundation, which has received support from Tides. This campaign, along with others like 350.org, funded by Soros and Tides, has been involved in spreading misinformation about Indian industrialists and the Indian government. The Bob Brown Foundation’s activities, including support for anti-Adani and anti-India narratives, reflect a broader pattern of geopolitical influence and criticism against India.

The Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), also funded by Soros and Ford Foundation, has been implicated in attacks against Indian industrialists like Gautam Adani. The OCCRP’s funding and activities further indicate a network of organizations involved in critical narratives against India.

(With inputs from OpIndia)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post OpIndia Report Reveals The Shady Money Trail Of Wikipedia Foundation appeared first on The Commune.

Meta’s Instagram recently suspended the OpIndia account, citing vague policy violations related to restricted items. This sparked widespread criticism and accusations of arbitrary censorship. The account was reinstated following the backlash, but the incident has raised concerns about the platform’s commitment to free speech and fair treatment.

Reason for Suspension

The pop-up message stated that OpIndia’s handle may have violated policies related to the ‘buying, selling, or exchange of items restricted by governments’. The platform listed examples such as firearms, animal parts, tobacco, alcohol, or drugs as prohibited items.This suspension came as a surprise, especially since OpIndia is a news platform not involved in any such activities. Instagram’s reasoning was widely criticized as nonsensical, with many suggesting that the decision reflected a broader pattern of arbitrary censorship by Big Tech companies.

Instagram has suspended the OpIndia account. The reason provided is simply asinine. It appears that Big Tech is no longer even bothered about providing a reasonable explanation – they will make shit up and suspend voices they don’t like. And the Left wanted us to believe that… pic.twitter.com/VvDPvNedJF

— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) August 22, 2024

The suspension was met with widespread criticism, with many pointing out that the reasoning provided by Instagram was not only vague but also illogical. Some critics suggested that this incident was indicative of a broader issue where social media companies use their power to silence voices they disagree with, without offering a legitimate or coherent explanation.

Anti-national, pro-Congress, leftist handles celebrated the suspension.

Yeh kya hua?
Kaise hua?
Kab hua?
Kyun hua?

Thank you, @instagram , for taking out the trash and cleaning up! pic.twitter.com/BWM3roTojN

— Congress Kerala (@INCKerala) August 23, 2024

Dear @elonmusk

Learn something from @instagram . They are suspending hateful handles while your team doesn’t.

Hateful bigots like @randomsena , @MrSinha_ , @ajeetbharti and @SonOfBharat7 are thriving on @X even after thousands of reports against them.

Have some shame for not… https://t.co/XDUmARyxU1 pic.twitter.com/broJjavnsz

— Team Saath Official (@TeamSaath) August 22, 2024

OpIndia’s Instagram account has been suspended by Meta for spreading hate.

So sad @UnSubtleDesi pic.twitter.com/KQbAKHGxkx

— صالحة Swaleha (@Swaleha_2) August 22, 2024

OpIndia Account Re-Instated

However, after backlash and scrutiny, Instagram reinstated the OpIndia account, acknowledging that the suspension could have been a mistake.

Nothing can be better than this !!! Thank you @instagram for this clean up !!!@OpIndia_com pic.twitter.com/IH9n6StE9u

— Sanghamitra Bandyopadhyay (@SanghamitraLIVE) August 22, 2024

The reinstatement was celebrated by OpIndia, with its Chief Editor, Nupur Sharma, sarcastically noting that Meta had finally realized they ‘weren’t involved in selling guns or animals’ on Instagram, calling the initial suspension decision as one made by “a bunch of noobs.”

We are back. Meta has managed to figure out the obvious – that we aren’t selling guns or dogs on Instagram. Bunch of noobs https://t.co/yb6EvKhmpg pic.twitter.com/ZWm821Bq2a

— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) August 22, 2024

Critics argue that such actions undermine trust in these platforms and question their commitment to free speech and fair treatment of all users.

Notably, platforms controlled by Meta—Facebook and Instagram—shadow ban pro-Hindu handles.

The Commune has faced this on Facebook. Our posts on Rahul Gandhi and Hindenburg were repeatedly taken down even though we challenged the decision. No plausible explanation has been given to date.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Meta’s Instagram Suspends OpIndia’s Account, Reinstates Later; Congress Supporters Celebrate Suspension appeared first on The Commune.

In yet another fiasco of its fundraising campaigning, the Congress party had shared the link to the wrong/fake website which resembled the original one.

Media reports state that lakhs of money sent by supporters have gone to scamsters because of this.

The Indian National Congress (INC) recently initiated an online crowdfunding campaign named “Donate for Desh,” which literally means “Donate for the country” announced on 16 December 2023, and officially launched on 18 December 2023, by Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge.

Kharge emphasized that these funds are pivotal for the party’s efforts in shaping a better India. Drawing inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi’s historic Tilak Swaraj Fund of 1920-21, this initiative aims to empower the party in fostering an India marked by fair resource distribution and opportunities. Kharge has urged citizens to contribute varying amounts, such as ₹138, ₹1380, and ₹13800, to the Congress account.

#WATCH | Delhi: Congress MP KC Venugopal says, "The Indian National Congress is proud to announce the launch of its online crowdfunding campaign, 'Donate for Desh'. This initiative is inspired by Mahatma Gandhi's historic Tilak Swaraj Fund' in 1920-21 and aims to empower our… pic.twitter.com/aHaccPabvf

— ANI (@ANI) December 16, 2023

However, there seems to be a noticeable setback for the Congress party, evident in both fundraising and digital strategy, where in it showed indicating a level of incompetence.

Moye Moye 1: Failed To Register Domain

Interestingly, the links provided by the Congress for crowdfunding campaign inadvertently directed donors to the BJP’s donation page. This situation arose because the Congress party initiated the crowdfunding campaign without securing the relevant domain names which were tactfully secured and registered by the BJP.

Following this crowdfunding mishap, netizens criticized the Congress, questioning why the party commenced the campaign prematurely without registering the necessary domain names.

I have been dealing in domains and hosting since 2003. It has been over 20 years. I have never seen someone so irresponsible as @INCIndia, who started a nationwide campaign by the name "#DonateForDesh" but forgot to register TLDs, including .com and .org. Check the domains below…

— Anurag (@LekhakAnurag) December 18, 2023

I mean by their own admission, idiots had 2 days to book at least the .org or .in domain name, but they didn't. Has Congress got "Donate for Desh" as a trademark? If their alliance called be called INDIA, we can ask money too for DonateForDesh https://t.co/eXPfnV1VNo

— Rahul Roushan (@rahulroushan) December 18, 2023

After the jibe Congress established an alternative domain to collect donations and also disseminated information on the online donation process.

महत्त्वपूर्ण सूचना

आज भारतीय राष्ट्रीय कांग्रेस के स्थापना दिवस पर नागपुर की महारैली में कुर्सियों के पीछे एक बारकोड लगा है।

उस बारकोड को स्कैन कर आप 138 रुपए, 1380 रुपए, 13800 रुपए, 138000 रुपए या उससे अधिक भारतीय राष्ट्रीय कांग्रेस को दान स्वरूप दे सकते हैं।

इस रैली में… pic.twitter.com/ruVNSdC0WW

— Congress (@INCIndia) December 28, 2023

Moye Moye 2: Publishes Fake URL In Official Document

When the Congress was fighting itself with its embarrassment on the ongoing ‘Donate for Desh’ campaign, which has been active for the past month. This time another embarrassment took a more serious turn as the party unintentionally promoted a fake website that closely mimics the official campaign site. Unfortunately, funds directed to this site end up benefiting someone else rather than the Congress party.

On 10 January 2024, the Indian National Congress distributed its pamphlet on Rahul Gandhi’s upcoming event ‘Bharat Nyay Yatra’ which had a QR code and URL for the ‘Donate for Desh’ website, which was again inaccurately presented. Instead of donateinc.in, the pamphlet mistakenly printed donateinc.co.in and the same erroneous URL was incorporated into the QR code.

As the QR code and URL were provided by the Congress party in an official pamphlet document, users were unlikely to suspect the website’s authenticity given its close imitation of the official site.

It was only during the transaction completion stage one could find an odd name “Roj cash” under the banner Indian National Congress and the funds are being redirected elsewhere. While it cannot be definitively stated with certainty that the congress supporters were deceived but it is an outright scam, resulting in financial losses for numerous Congress supporters.

Curiously, the Congress party has not conveyed any level of distress and discontent regarding the issue. Despite this blatant case of intentional deception, the party has refrained from publicly declaring any intention to file a police complaint against those orchestrating the scam. Moreover, the resolution strategy the party intends to adopt for addressing the issue remains unclear.

(With inputs from OpIndia)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Moye Moye Max: Congress Prints Fake URL Of ‘Donate For Desh’ On Its Official Doc, Money Of Supporters Went To Scamsters appeared first on The Commune.

The CEO of OpIndia, Rahul Roushan, and Editor-in-Chief, Nupur Sharma, have been booked by Thiruninravur Police, which falls under the jurisdiction of Avadi city police commissionerate, for spreading “fake news” about alleged attacks on migrants from Bihar in Tamil Nadu.

The police have booked the case under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 153-A [Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony], 505 (1) (b) [Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility] and 505 (2).

What The FIR Says

The FIR has been registered based on the complaint filed by DMK IT Wing member Surya Prakash who accused OpIndia of spreading false news and creating a sense of fear among the public and migrant from Bihar and other States.

“Opindia.com website has published a report quoting that Hindi daily one Dainik Baskar has published a report stating that several migrant laborers originally from Jamuai District in Bihar working in Tamil Nadu have confirmed this attacks. They have alleged that has many as 15 people have lost their lifes in the “Taliban” style attacks being carried out against the Hindi speaking migrant laborers in the state. As a result terror has gripped these migrant laborers who are now fleeing the state in large numbers.”, the complaint filed by the DMK member noted in his complaint based on which the FIR has been filed.

What OpIndia Reported

The OpIndia article, which was published on 3 March 2023, was based on the report of Hindi Daily Dainik Bhaskar which stated that several migrant labourers from Bihar working in Tamil Nadu were attacked and that more than a dozen of them had lost their lives. The article published in Hindi daily Dainik Bhaskar on 2 March 2023 claimed that as many as 15 Hindi-speaking migrant labourers lost their lives in “Talibani” style attacks in Tamil Nadu. This article which was published by Dainik Bhaskar in both print and online was reported by OpIndia.

However, these reports were found to be exaggerated with many incidents cited in the original Hindi article being feuds and altercations that happened in other states.

OpIndia on its part carried the versions of Tamil Nadu police as well as the versions mentioned by Dainik Bhaskar.

Political Slugfest

It is to be noted that not just OpIndia but even political parties fell victim to the exaggerated misreporting by a few Hindi media outlets. Since it was carried in the print version of Dainik Bhaskar and a few mainstream Hindi news channels picking it up, it turned political with subsequent amplification of these reports by BJP Bihar. This had unleashed a political slugfest with migrant workers in Tamil Nadu facing the brunt. The opposition BJP and Lok Janshakti Party in Bihar raised the issue  state Assembly before staging a walkout on Friday (3 March 2023), demanding that a team of House members be sent to Tamil Nadu to investigate reports of attacks on Bihari migrants working in Tamil Nadu.

Zubair, The Serial Fake News Peddler

The FIR against OpIndia has been filed by the Tamil Nadu police based on the complaint given by a DMK member who had referred to the tweets of self-proclaimed ‘fact-checker’ Mohammed Zubair of Alt News.

Mohammed Zubair has a history of peddling fake news and propaganda against Hindus.  A few instances of Alt-News and its co-founders Mohammed Zubair and Pratik Sinha peddling inaccurate, fake, and deliberately provocative content over the years can be found here and here.

It was Zubair who had shared an edited clip of former BJP leader Nupur Sharma’s remarks, which eventually led to targeted reverberation of ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ solgans in different parts of the country with mobs baying for Nupur Sharma’s blood. It also led to the killing of several innocent Hindus who had supported Nupur Sharma.

What Serial Fake News Peddler Didn’t Tell

North Indian migrant labourers, primarily from Tiruppur and surrounding areas, were fleeing the state fearing attacks against them. There have been several incidents of violence reported against workers from other states across Tamil Nadu in the last few months.

In Tiruppur, a feud broke out between a local and a migrant worker from a garment unit at Thilagar Nagar West in Velampalayam after the former blew cigarette smoke at his face. The migrant worker retaliated and moved away from the spot. Later, the local along with a few friends entered the garment unit and attacked the worker. With the support of his colleagues, he retaliated.

Students at the RVS Engineering College in Kannampalayam, Coimbatore clashed with migrant workers at the college mess over the quality of chicken dish served.

Students of a private college and guest workers in the college mess clash in #Coimbatore. @karthickselvaa
@mahajournalist pic.twitter.com/Q9Ob56JDKp

— Mugilan Chandrakumar (@Mugilan__C) February 14, 2023

A Bengali construction worker who was stranded near Kelambakkam in Chengalpattu district was blindly attacked by local youths who mistook him for a thief. Six people were arrested and charged with murder in connection with the attack.

North Indian migrant workers travelling in Vaigai Express train were abused and attacked by a Vizhupuram man who claimed that their jobs were taken by Hindi speakers. He was arrested after the video of the attack became viral.

This assault is a hate crime which is a result of hate politics happening in the state . From name calling to physical assault , the guy abuses the prime minister of the country . @mkstalin inaction in such cases is a sin putting tamils elsewhere at risk . @annamalai_k @AmitShah pic.twitter.com/HBpLVyS4wz

— karthik gopinath (@karthikgnath) February 15, 2023

While the incidents mentioned in Dainik Bhaskar are untrue, these multiple instances of violence against migrant workers from other states can be seen as a fallout of the continuous hate campaign unleashed by DMK leaders including several Ministers, Seeman’s Naam Tamilar Katchi, Dravidian Stock YouTube channels and other fringe elements. Slurs like ‘Vadakkan’, ‘Paani Puri wala’, ‘Panparag vaayan’ have been normalised by DMK leaders and their sympathizers on through social media. The DMK had hitherto of peddled hate against north Indians with xenophobic rhetoric. In the run up to the 2021 Assembly elections, the DMK had also released political ads in which youngsters can be seen alleging that Edappadi Palaniswami government is giving Tamil Nadu jobs to north Indians. Full page ads were given in which it was peddled that Hindi-speaking north Indians were grabbing jobs of Tamils.

Shameless…… pic.twitter.com/Srd4H264Op

— Vishwatma ( மோடியின் குடும்பம் ) (@HLKodo) March 5, 2023

MK Stalin, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, himself had incited hatred against North Indians working in Tamil Nadu during the election campaign.

வட மாநிலத்தவர் குறித்து திமுக செய்த வெறுப்பு பிரச்சாரங்களை அறிக்கையாக வெளியிட்டிருந்தேன்.

அதற்காக என் மீது வழக்கு பதிவு செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளதாக அறிகிறேன்.

அறிக்கையில் குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளவையை காணொளியாகவும் வெளியிடுகிறேன்.

திறனற்ற திமுகவுக்கு திராணி இருந்தால் என்னை கைது செய்யவும். pic.twitter.com/yLtf9LNfAH

— K.Annamalai (@annamalai_k) March 5, 2023

However, as migrant workers were reported to be departing the State in large numbers, Mohammed Zubair was on a tweet spree sharing videos of migrant workers claiming to be safe. His tweets had no mention of the hate speeches made by DMK leaders against north Indian workers. His covering of the incident seems like an attempt to buttressing and salvaging the DMK government shielding its past antecedents.

Many on social media pointed out that his tweets reeks of bias as he had never pointed out the hate peddled by DMK.

Why have you been silent on DMK leaders spreading hate on North Indian workforce TN and Hindi speaking Indians?

— Indhavaainko (இந்தாவாய்ங்கோ) (@indhavaainko) March 4, 2023

DMK govt is active proponent of abusing North Indians.@RSBharathiDMK (DMK spokesperson)@VelmuruganTVK (DMK MLA) have been abusing North Indians.@tnpoliceoffl is silent and supportive of thes genocidal hate mongers. Unless they are arrested there is no justice#DMKGoons pic.twitter.com/16oIvW9Off

— திராவிட குண்டன் (@draavidagundan) March 4, 2023

#NorthIndianworkers & #NorthIndians
Meet #DMK MP TR Balu' son TRB Raja #DMKITWING head .
Mr Zoothubear @zoo_bear can you fact check this ? https://t.co/4NxHKmG98v

— Bheema (@Bheema4K) March 6, 2023

This guy is a DMK MLA and local rowdy
He has given open threat to all North Indians to vacate Tamilnadu. These posters are all over pic.twitter.com/pKqfMJLwRK

— tenali raman (@tenaliraman007) March 3, 2023

Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post TN Police Files FIR Against OpIndia CEO And Chief Editor Based On Fake News Peddler Zubair’s Tweets appeared first on The Commune.