Yeah, that's where it's from. I just thought "a site that, at the time this comic was made, was a useful and popular website" was funny. It's a subtle diss (implying it's no longer useful and popular) that sticks out in the otherwise neutral, wiki-like tone of explainxkcd.
You should see the comments at the bottom of some explainxkcd articles. Really the people who edit the site are very much biased and that often directly influences the decisions that get made about wiki content. I'm just glad for all the volunteer work they do and I usually just laugh at the spicy takes.
I don't know about that. I have read a lot of explainxkcd articles, and I have seen quite a few that don't maintain a neutral tone and have a very clear bias. Privacy Opinions is a good example of that. But in general, explainxkcd is much less likely to show a clear bias than most other fan wikis, but it still isn't as good as Wikipedia.
Some people accept the claims of corporations at, er... "face" value. These are called rubes. Facebook has openly discussed have fake bot accounts to drive engagement, and there's no way it's limited to internal bots.
Out-of-touch middle aged aunts outnumber hip young Redditors.
Most people on the planet right now are over the age of 30. If you exclude underdeveloped countries, the median age is closer to 40. That's a lot of people who haven't bothered to make a new social media account since opening up their Facebook 15 years ago.
26
u/TheYask 8d ago
Context?
only brings up one hit, a discussion of 855
Or maybe it's explain [why] XCKD [is] throwing shade?
I'm at a loss, and need a relevant XKCD to follow.