politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Hey @Rooki@lemmy.world and @jordanlund@lemmy.world: When I was sending that code to parse Wikipedia's sources list for a possibly better fact-checking scanner, one of the notable things that I found out is that Wikipedia regards Newsweek as unreliable. It used to be reliable, as most media outlets are, but they say that since an ownership change a few years ago, they're not. I have to say, now that I've been paying attention, their stories definitely seem to have very little to do with factual information, and quite a lot to do with amassing clicks or communicating a particular partisan message which isn't true, or both. Case in point, this explicitly propaganda-framed article.
I don't see a community rule which is specifically against unreliable articles, as measured by any source, but how would you feel about that? In conjunction with a more robust standard for what is and isn't reliable? In my judgement, this link is clearly in violation of "Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed."
Also, why is this guy still allowed to post? It seems weird. He's so openly spamming the community with unwelcome trolling and propaganda that it seems strange that he's still being welcomed with open arms. In what way is this improving the community to have him putting up a steady flow of posts, and having every one met with universal downvotes and jeering?
It's a broader question than this one post, but this post is a good example in reference to both questions.
Preach it.
What specifically about the article do you find clickbaity or unfactual?
I've discussed it elsewhere in the comments. The reason why more people changed their party affiliation in 2024 than 2023 has absolutely nothing to do with them being Democrats or not, but the article has constructed this bizarre artificial lens to look at that fact through, that lets them pretend that it had something to do with them being Democrats, and imply that that means people overall are leaving the Democratic party, when that has nothing to do with the data they're looking at.
sorry we are repeating this in another thread, I didn't realize I replied to the same person twice. But I do want to leave this here for context.
To me it does seem a little concerning that democrats have lost more registrations than republicans: