news

23550 readers

1227 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

234

The CIA proving the necessity of China's Great Firewall once again (hexbear.net)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

170 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago (4 children)

I just realized something I hadn't really consciously thought about before in regards to how believable articles are when their sources are "confidential" and "intelligence officials" etc.

I have no problem believing an article like this at all even with no hard source, but I immediately discard reports that put the US in a positive light with the same lack of hard sources.

Then I thought "well that's not really fair, I shouldn't just believe this either then". Shortly after that though, I realized that if someone were publishing material AGAINST the US or its allies' interests then they're taking a big risk and they MUST have some sort of credible source or sources, whereas if they're just being a propaganda mouthpiece there's no risk to their sources being complete shit or even non-existent.

So while the article could be just as much bullshit as any other, it's less likely in my opinion, because there is a risk to publishing completely false information based on shadowy or non-existent sources.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments