To clarify: No “this might happen” or “this may happen” or this “could lead to” type posts. I hate having so many today, but it’s the aftermath of yesterday.
Also, no Biden or Harris election posts. We are in a new timeline now.
I took over this site so I could post things factually happening and kind of keep track for myself. Please join in if you’d like, but I’m pretty strict about the vibe.
I set up a community called “Keep Track” for just such an occasion:
That’s a great community! Thanks for pointing it out.
Both these seem awesome. But I have two controversial opinions on this.
First, I think there are way too many “lone mod hero communities” when there are others trying to do almost the same thing, and I think there should be more collaboration? Like maybe y’all should repost in others subs, selectively, or something.
Apologies if that seems offensive, but I am very touchy about this. I live in a world where too many coding projects, open source and corporate, just reinvent the wheel either because they didn’t spot the other project… Or ignore each other for other reasons. The open source space is in desperate need of more integration, and that extends to federated social media.
Second, on your sub’s rules @jordanlund, I have many objections to YouTube, but there are many creators on there who (to me) absolutely qualify as verified news sources with all the evidence/citations they show, more than some major websites. Some delivering news you’ll find nowhere else simply because it isn’t posted in text format. Hence I have… mixed feelings banning YouTube as a source, as I do understand the need to keep the funk away.
The problem with YouTube, and Substack, and, really, any social media is the problem with vetting.
I get it, your channel may be perfectly cromulent, but you know as well as I do that the well of crazy on YouTube goes pretty deep and literally anyone can start a YouTube channel.
Rather than vetting each individal channel, and then getting into arguments of “Buh, buh, you approved THAT ONE, why not MIIIIIIINNNE!” it’s just easier from a mod perspective to go “Yeah, no.”
I like the vibe here and appreciate the curation.
Definitely agree that only concrete “will happen” or “is happening” articles should be posted. News outlets should take note of that.
Thanks, I appreciate it. The trolling has begun, I’m trying to cut them off at the pass. We’ll see how it goes.
Edit:
News outlets should take note of that.
They’re most of the problem. I’ve heard from many, even close friends of mine, that “the news didn’t cover it, so it must not be important.” Sometimes they didn’t, but usually it’s just drowned out by all of the crap.
Man… Hasn’t been a full day and I’m already so tired of the “What does XYZ mean for the future?” or “Will he really do this and that?”
NOBODY KNOWS!! Just tell me when it’s ACTUALLY HAPPENING!!
Excellent choice. This has been how I’ve chosen to consume news in the wake of the election, and it’s been working out well.
It’s really the only way to deal with trump. He is constantly saying as many absurd things as possible, and it’s easy to get distracted by the nonsense.
Over time when things slow down a bit, maybe consider the occasional will do X, if it points to multiple instances of trump speaking about the same theme.
What he says is important to know. I’m mainly all done with the panel of newspeople all kvetching about it and trying to predict what might happen.
It’s more about the themes of what he says. Trump likes to use a door in the face strategy. He intentionally makes ridiculous statements and demands, that makes people more receptive to his actual request.
I agree with you. Unfortunately the mass amount of articles about him everyday are trying to predict what hes going to do. Or pretending to understand what he’s said.
Usually, the “facts of the matter” appear relatively early in the article/video, and I can check out when the thread starts to wander.
When those facts of the matter are sprinkled amongst a bunch of thinly veiled rage bait all the way through, then you know you’re looking at propaganda (I’m looking at you, NewRepublic).
Hear hear! Thank you
I hope the world news comms do the same. Keep track and us news (or something like that) should be fine with the what ifs.I was actually wondering if there’s a news outlet that would do that but another extra step: filter what Trump and others say. e.g. the whole Gulf of Mexico/Greenland/Canada BS. I don’t want to read about everything he says because most is just trolling and leads to nothing. And that’s basically what news sources were on the first term. I’d rather read only if/when becomes something real, e.g, “Canada imposes sanctions on US due Trump’s statements of anexing Canada”.
I think it is a little complicated for news outlets not to report on bills being submitted or trump talking about doing something he’s very likely to do. There can be no backlash from anyone if they don’t know about it. My issue is, the pubs put the crap as the top headline and then bury the articles of what’s really going on. I have to dig to find the real stuff.
Most of the top people on the boards for almost every pub is tied to a corporation of some sort. If they’re owned by someone, it’s definitely a billionaire. On the sidebar, there’s a link I did last election cycle and I tried to highlight who the people were tied to.
