only one of them* is peer-reviewed. it doesn't actually support the claim that you're using it to support. The others are of dubious validity, but they also don't make the same very strong claim that you have.
edit: "them" was in reference to the comment a few back in the thread. the gish gallop of links that appeared after i wrote this comment all appear to be peer reviewed.
no, I'm examining your position, and the evidence provided, and found that they are insufficient.
turns out, everything is political, so, yes, it's all propaganda.
I haven't seen them, but I do know they work with the pentagon, so my guess is they aim to legitimize American hegemony and military spending
it shows that the evidence you've provided doesn't actually support your claim
it's not useless if it describes something.
it doesn't need to be misconstrued. the best propaganda imho is totally true and in context. spreading it with some kind of political goal is still propaganda.
the only peer reviewed source you provided spends as much time detailing risks as it does explaining potential benefits, and it's based on a single case study.
I like open protocols and free software, and during the API exodus there was finally enough content that I wanted to jump ship.
of course I had annoyances with reddit, but I have annoyances with Lemmy too.
it's still preferable imho
do you have the CO2 data for that period as well
calling me names won't change the facts.