i was aware that social media was just as compromised as legacy media as evidenced by facebook and reddit's efforts to section off news/developments about this case into an easy to control and highly moderated "smoking sections" and i hope that .world's version isn't the same thing.

i suspect that it is because the other sites use the same talking points that to justify its existence. eg: "it was organically user driven in nature" or "to help guard against misinformation"