Can we have a policy here of not rewriting/making up titles? I'm not interested on personal takes before reaching the comments section.
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
8 points (64.3% liked)
World News
32090 readers
1355 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
i kinda agree with /u/u_tamtam, it's standard practice to not change titles when posting articles to link aggregators, so most users (reasonably so) operate off of the assumption that the titles aren't altered, this gets esp confusing, when ppl change the headlines only slightly
imo it's good to have a clear line separating the article (with all its potential biases and misrepresentations) and opinions/commentary of the user, esp when lemmy allows link posts to have an attached text segment ๐คทโโ๏ธ
load more comments
(8 replies)
The titles in the articles are themselves editorialized and sometimes even misrepresent the content. I think the post title should reflect what was interesting about the article. You are of course free to make your own community with whatever rules you like.
The titles in the articles are themselves editorialized and sometimes even misrepresent the content.
How is that a defense for letting anyone rewrite titles? Silly idea, if the source is that bad, how about just not using it?
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm not understanding the contradiction here. They're saying it was a spy balloon for spying but that it failed at its task. Not sure how true that is, no way for me to tell but there's no inherent paradox here.
What I understand from the context is that it was a spying device but they jammed the hell out of it while flying over the US then took it down.
That's my point. The original poster is trying to draw a line between statements that the balloon was a spying device and later statements that it did not collect intelligence while it transited over US territory as evidence that it wasn't a spying device and that the former of those statements is therefore inherently a lie. My take, without assessing the truthfulness of the claims, is that the linked articles do not support such a conclusion. One can claim the device was for spying and that it also didn't collect intelligence without contradiction because the claim is that it failed to collect intelligence, not that it did not intend to do so in the first place.
load more comments
(59 replies)
view more: next โบ