this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
167 points (99.4% liked)

politics

22605 readers
4255 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zulu@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago (4 children)

According to the "political" meter in this website, this article is "unfair left leaning"

Mannnnnnn, is it unfair to want people with that kind of power to treat communications with respect/thought/security? Why is this even a left/right thing at a fundamental level?

[–] courageousstep@lemm.ee 22 points 1 week ago (3 children)

You can vote on its political leaning as a reader without logging in. I just did it myself. I marked it neutral.

So that meter is just showing how the conservative readers’ brains are interpreting actual facts, meaning “facts I don’t like are liberal.” Which…is asinine.

[–] Rambomst@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I did this as well. Did you notice after voting it says most votes mark this as "Center/fair" but if you then view the webpage in a private tab it goes back to being "Unfair left leaning" article. I'm guessing Newsweek lock that value? How could it be unfair left leaning if most votes are for neutral....

[–] courageousstep@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago

I did not notice that! Sounds like a deliberate falsification of data that totally furthers the agenda of Newsweek.

Nothing to see here. All is normal and fine. No need to worry.

[–] match@pawb.social 6 points 1 week ago

i went ahead and make it unfair right leaning because I'm a little scamp

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago

If left wing people and normal people mark it neutral, and right wing people mark it far left, the average will be a left bias for the meter. These kinds of "fairness meters" assume everyone is acting in good faith and the right is never acting in good faith.

This is why we can't have nice things.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago

"Unfair left leaning" just means "true".

[–] Tower@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

That's just the poorly designed default position.

[–] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 week ago

That’s its uninitialized position, I believe

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

White House officials said they were vindicated by the latest reporting, pointing to an earlier characterization of the discussions as "war plans," language which had now shifted to "attack plans."

So far these have been their arguments in defense of themselves:

  1. Hey, this is the first time we've catastrophically fucked up on security in a whole two months so treat us with some respect! (And letting an unelected drug-addled Nazi and some disreputable teenagers roam freely through all government computer systems doesn't count.)
  2. We didn't leak war plans to a journalist, like you all claimed, we leaked attack plans. Totally different so you're a bunch of liars.
  3. Nothing that was leaked was classified. We totally meant the movements of our bombers to be made public before the mission started.

Hands up who thinks these are not utterly ridiculous responses!

[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You forgot

\4. This so-called reporter with a long history of hoaxes faked this entire story.

At least they tried that line before giving up when not even most of their party believed them.

[–] tonytins@pawb.social 14 points 1 week ago

This is the weirdest timeline.