- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/29061644
We’ve done it, we got rid of another soulless right wing politician!
Peter Dutton first made his party lose this election and now also lost his own seat much like Pierre Pullover
We’ve still got a government that green-lit new coal power plants in it’s last term, screwed over the Aboriginal community with a poorly run referendum, and still doesn’t give a shit about climate change, but baby steps hey.
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s a pretty fundamental aspect of content aggregators. If posters editorialise the articles they post it becomes an echochamber for a very confined range of opinions.
Counterpoint. I posted an article from the Australian national broadcaster. They have their flaws but they aint breitbart.
While I sensationalised the title and added my 2 cents in the original OP I cross posted to this community, I linked to a nice source and created a more world context friendly title, yet far from disingenuous click bait.
The upvotes and the comments are largely based on that.
What this rule is currently accomplishing:
- people will just post sensationalist sources with clickbaity titles and questionable journalism
- or people will create sensationalist titles for neutral higher quality sources and then the top comment is always going to be about this level of virtue signalling.
What’s the point of a community if these are the rules? You’re asking for bad sources and at best or you’re just a comment section provider for legacy media.
Why has everyone started saying “counterpoint” all of a sudden. Every comment is a counterpoint.
Counterpoint. Hopefully people aren’t idiots that upvote sensational headlines.
Counterpoint. Everything I already said.
Counterpoint. You could make your own community where people sensationalise headlines.