Talk:Rumble (company)

Rumble promotes itself...

Rumble promotes itself as being "immune to cancel culture".

References

I've removed this because it's WP:SOAP. As I indicated in my edit summaries, I think it cherry-picks Rumble's pov over what encyclopedic context the reference contains, how Rumble pivoted to embrace right-wing viewers. It could be used to verify Rumble's pivot. - Hipal (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What is your proposed wording Hipal? Luganchanka (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure. The WaPo ref that Vox uses is confusing me a bit: The Seattle Times, MSN, and Washing Post refs all appear to be the same article, but I've not looked closely. --Hipal (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok Hipal, will wait for your wording on this!) Luganchanka (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not a priority for me. I hope others will look into the refs, and see if new refs might be available. --Hipal (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure SOAP or cherrypicking apply as it actual is detrimental to Rumble. It promotes itself as immune to cancel culture which is likely why those prone to being cancelled flock to it. It is not really a priority for me either but added it back as no one had every objected to it. I think the working "Rumble promotes itself as being immune to cancel culture" is fine. It doesn't say they "are" immune, it just says they promote themselves that way which is supported by quite a few secondary reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with its removal. The source uses quotation marks for a reason. "Cancel culture" is a loaded phrase. It means whatever Rumble wants it to mean, and the second that definition becomes inconvenient, Rumble can shift to some new definition. That's how PR like this works. The problem is that people who are bought-in to the narrative that Alex Jones and the like are victims of "cancel culture" are not going to pick up on this subtlety. In that sense, it absolutely is promotional, at least for the audience Rumble is trying to reach. That is isn't inherently promotional to anyone else is irrelevant. That the company is capitalizing on this moral panic is mildly interesting, but it needs more context before being included here. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand how it would be promotional to state something that the company claims to be which is also cited in many reliable sources. Is it the "promotes" word in the proposed wording? SOAP I believe would apply to using Wikipedia to promote itself. Here, it used its website to state something that is cited by quite a few sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In the Vox source this description is specifically contextualized as a "pivot" that panders to a right-wing audience. This helps readers understand what "cancel culture" means in this specific context. The mention in the article had no such context, so cherry-picking seems like a reasonable concern. The lack of context also renders the phrase "cancel culture" even less informative, in which case, why bother mentioning it at all?

As for being promotional, if an article on Grayfell's Hamburger Stand repeatedly said that "the company describes itself as serving perfectly-grilled beef patties on fluffy sesame-seed buns" even with a thousand sources this would still be promotional. It doesn't matter whether or not it's technically true. We still need a reason to mention this. Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I see that specifically for the Vox source, but there are many others so I am wondering why concentrate on that one specifically. I see promotion on the Grayfell Hamburger Stand page (I'd probably try it at least once by the way) as saying "Grayfell's Hamburger Stand has the best hamburgers in all of Wikipedia land" but not promotional to say "Grayfell's Hamburger Stand describes itself as having the best hamburgers in all of Wikipedia land." I see a distinction with using Wikipedia as a promotional tool and citing on Wikipedia how someone else describes their promotion. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Most companies describe themselves in multiple ways depending on audience and context and so on. So why are sources talking about this one description? If sources provide context, let's include that context. To ignore that context would be promotional, because it's using passive language to repeat promotional wording without also imparting falsifiable information. Grayfell (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In the Vox source this description is specifically contextualized as a "pivot" that panders to a right-wing audience. It's that context that I think we should include in the article, but I'd prefer at least one additional reference to figure out proper wording, to be included in the History section. --Hipal (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi guys, are we closer to a draft here? Who is going to put out some wording, to be workshopped? Luganchanka (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey of users

Hello, as I was reading this article I noticed the statement:

Around 90% of Rumble users believed news hosted on the site was mostly accurate.

I'm trying to figure out the encyclopedic significance of that statement? I don't immediately see any, and wondering if it should be removed. Thanks for any thoughts. abcasada (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

For the same reason the other stats in the paragraph are encyclopedic. Why focus on that removal as opposed to the "48% had posted about abortion, 44% had posted about LGBTQ topics (specifically the LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory)" statement? I think you would need to look at the paragraph as a whole. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)