I’ll allow this, but IMO once you get to 200k+ subscribers you should really consider launching an actual website. Ex-The Intercept and ex-HuffPost journalists should know better.

I do think we don’t have a clear policy on opinion pieces and that’s absolutely something we should work towards. Right now it’s more of a case-by-case basis.

If you could point to some specific examples that would be great!

deleted by creator

Now would be a good time to describe what specific issues you have with Greenwald’s reporting on past issues and where he’s been inconsistent with facts revealed after the fact.

His stint at The Guardian where he broke the Snowden leaks?

His work at The Intercept that revealed the corrupt dealings that led to Brazil’s Lula losing the election and being imprisoned?

Or is it his appearances on US media, where he’s on record for questioning the efficacy of Russian interference in the 2016 election (which IIRC is backed by a study in Nature Communications) and criticizing Israeli influence in US politics?

I’m not disagreeing with you, but you’re not exactly providing much in the way of evidence outside of your own opinion.

This article is based on an investigation by Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covid-propaganda/

If you are going to discredit a source, please try to discredit the claims made rather than the author.

If you’re going to discredit a link, please make sure that the statement itself is incorrect. You are being warned.

Kyiv Post also calls it an early warning radar complex: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34782

This is a good point and we’ll take it under consideration. Unfortunately, sometimes we do have to make a judgement call, but if there are any particular cases you’d like to discuss please mention them here.

Until reports are publicly released by the EPA or judicial proceedings continue, this is not a valid news source.

Please link to an English translation or article summary in the comments.

Related discussion: https://lemmy.ml/post/17045588

Really? Damn. Either way, archive link in the comments would be preferred.

In the future when citing Reuters, please use one of Reuters’ official outlet links (reuters.com, YouTube/Twitter from the Reuters account).

First of all, the Saudi Arabia-US petrodollar deal was signed in 1974. 2024-1974 < 80. I’m locking this post.

Please use the actual news site (CNN), not an aggregator link (Google News).

They were banned for telling someone that posted MBFC to shove [MBFC] up their ass. Decorum, please.

The articles suggest that it may be beneficial for Type 1, but that’s unconfirmed. The nature of early-stage clinical trials is that people don’t really know how things will work. That’s the point of the trials.

Citing MBFC without a supporting claim that discredits the article is lazy and does not benefit the discussion. Comment removed.

Lemmy is a news aggregator. Why wouldn’t you find out about an early-stage clinical trial on Lemmy?

Any such treatment, even if it works, would take decades to pass through the various approval stages before being released to the public.

MBFC is a joke that evaluates factuality based on how well it aligns with the state department. We already know this.

DolphinMath is a propagandist that uses MBFC to whitewash propaganda. We also already know this.