You are only browsing one thread in the discussion! All comments are available on the post page.

Return

falsem , (edited )

I don't like the guy either but this is shitty source. "Some guy on twitter said a thing happened but you can't see it verified anywhere else now!"

dulce_3t_decorum_3st ,
@dulce_3t_decorum_3st@lemmy.world avatar

Except the actual video is widely available.

NoIWontPickaName ,

Link?

I'm lazy and uninformed, I'd like to be neither, but 1 is better than none.

Arotrios ,
@Arotrios@kbin.social avatar

From the article - be warned, it's a TwitX link.

Unaware7013 ,

Wow, even discounting the blatant Nazi imagery, that was absolutely terrible

Arotrios ,
@Arotrios@kbin.social avatar

Yeah. I sincerely hope Kate Bush's lawyers get a copy.

JonEFive ,

Honesty award

falsem ,

The claim is that someone from his staff shared it on an official Twitter account, which is unverifiable. Unless you know some way to view deleted tweets that I'm not aware of.

HandsHurtLoL ,

I saw your report and did not act on it because this site ranks with an acceptable reliability score from the media bias chart we use.

As moderators, we cannot ascertain the veracity of individual stories from white listed sources. You can use the link in the side bar to check the reliability rating of any source before reporting it; we only remove items ranking below a 32 reliability score.

falsem ,

Perhaps that threshold is too low then if this is what a "34" is.

HandsHurtLoL ,

You operate here on a voluntary basis.

JonEFive ,

Susinct and savage. I like it.

For what it's worth, I think the community is doing just fine at pointing out that a direct link to DeSantis isn't presently verifiable, and it is creating reasonable discussion.

falsem ,

Are you threatening me? Go ahead and ban me if this is how you want to run things. I meant it as feedback on the rules, if you can't take feedback on that please ban me.

Drusas ,

The comment was not meant to be a threat but a statement of fact--you are welcome to participate or not.

Our rules, in fact, are entirely based on community feedback. Before implementing them, we had multiple discussions on what the users of the magazine wanted to see. We will also be reviewing the rules at a later date, so that people can share feedback on what they have liked and what they would like to see changed. However, we've had rules for something like two weeks at this point, so it's a little soon for that. You would be perfectly welcome to create a meta discussion on the topic. If one of the rules turns out to need addressing promptly, I'm sure we can do so, and that will also be based on community feedback.

Finally, no, we don't ban people just because they get angry about something and/or ask to be banned.

crowsby ,
@crowsby@kbin.social avatar

How about the New York Times, and it turns out it wasn't just shared by the DeSantis campaign, but produced by it and then sent to an "outside supporter" to actually tweet, so they could maintain plausible deniability.

One recent move that drew intense blowback, including from Republicans, was the campaign’s sharing of a bizarre video on Twitter that attacked Mr. Trump as too friendly to L.G.B.T.Q. people and showed Mr. DeSantis with lasers coming out of his eyes. The video drew a range of denunciations, with some calling it homophobic and others homoerotic before it was deleted.

But it turns out to be more of a self-inflicted wound than was previously known: A DeSantis campaign aide had originally produced the video internally, passing it off to an outside supporter to post it first and making it appear as if it was generated independently, according to a person with knowledge of the incident.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •