I see you're trying to post a dupe on /.

As a long time editor I've seen how the bias works. It's frustrating because I remember when, broadly speaking, it was neutral. It starts at the top where the Wikimedia Foundation funds left wing groups and does not fund right wing groups. It runs fundraisers but people don't realize that it is swimming in money and diverting it to Art +Feminism, Black Lunch Table and Whose Knowledge.

These organizations publicly admit that they aim is to edit Wikipedia pages with leftist ideologies. Art + Feminism has an instructional guide showing how to create Wikipedia content about transgender and LGBTQ+ individuals.

Wikipedia has removed conservative news organizations as acceptable sources for news articles. The problem with that act of censorship, is that to construct a neutral article you frequently need balancing sources to achieve neutrality. Often there are facts that only a right or a left wing source will say. Given that mainstream new organizations are left wing, certain facts become impossible to source on the site.

You won't find the same treatment for conservative leaning people as you would for progressives. Often a few dog whistle words are added prominently by editors to a conservative's profile to signal that they are outside of Wikipedia's own Overton Window. And they will not uncommonly coordinate privately off-site, despite that being a violation of Wikipedia's rules.

Ironically, I remember completely different times before 2012 when I got into an edit war with conservatives that didn't want inconvenient facts mentioned about an anti-immigration organization. I spent significant time expanding a stub-like article into something comprehensive, only to be viscously attacked.

Now it's the other way round. It's progressives doing the attacking and edit warring. I was drawn to Wikipedia in part because of it's neutral point of view but it's now a progressive point of view hidden behind a few figleaf phrases here and there to deceive a superficial reader.

We helped our uncle, Jack, off a horse.

Out of curiosity, I opened the web version (https://teams.microsoft.com/v2/, in Firefox 144.0, on Mint 22.2, using Cinnamon 6.4.8 on a Beelink mini-desktop). To make the usual "test call", I can't go to three-dots (...)--> Settings --> Calls --> Devices (there is no "Devices" under THAT version of "Calls"). However, I CAN go to the "Calls" menu on the far left of the window --> Custom Setup (gear menu) --> Device Settings, and then do a Test Call.

From there, all works fine, including sound and video. Of course, all my Sound Input/Output devices work OK in the OS itself....

I used Firefox (not sure of what the version was) to successfully hold Teams meetings on the web on Mint (likely ~20 or 21), and Vivaldi on a different Mint system. I'm sorry I can't remember more. It was 6 months ago or so.

I have a couple of people I *can* "upgrade" to W11 from W10, but I think they're ideal candidates to move to Zorin or Mint.

MS used to supply a desktop client of Teams for LInux, but hasn't for a year or more at this point. However, the web interface works well enough. And if you don't mind snaps on your system, you can try wrapping the web interface in a sort of desktop app: https://snapcraft.io/teams-for...

Cute, even with the unironic discussion of irony self-contradiction.

No one will know if you actually know what 'irony' means.

He's a butter knife

AI can go and fuck itself!

Ducks don't "swim"!

We've just got to count the seconds until it does.

That's an interesting link, thank you.
The "nuances or causal factors" do show up -- somewhat -- farther down that report:

Fair. MY point is that I don't trust that source because whomever/whatever wrote it made a logical error.

OK. But copied the quote from where? I can't find a source worded like that.