Gay people can be gullible and naive too. Nobody said they were perfect.
If someone is burning 0days for fucking Lemmy they seriously need to get some help and re-evaluate their life choices lol
I was tired and it felt ranty after reading it back. Was also super off-topic. So I just deleted it.
You can throw both Bushes onto the list too. See Iran-Contra and the cocaine epidemic that also led us into the whole private prisons scheme. And Bush Jr. for the massive ($14 Trillion) national deficit we can't seem to pay off and Trump made even worse ($32 Trillion). Which is the real reason we have to keep raising the debt ceiling, so we can add it all to the budget.
Also worth noting, Obama and Biden (love em or hate em) both HALVED the deficit during their tenures. Which is why you'll never see Republican talking heads bring it up and just continue bitching about the debt ceiling.
Personally I just check the AP every morning and watch PBS News Hour over dinner if it's on. But I will poke around on Hacker News and NewsNow if I'm bored, which does have an option to check multiple sources like you mentioned (it's the stacked orange squares thing next to every headline). Both are 100% free.
And +1 for Ars Technica, I see them writing about right to repair a lot. Which I'm a huge supporter of.
Those were just examples, I wasn't trying to limit the scope, hence the "etc. etc." bit at the end. My point was to verify for yourself. Statements and events can be verified in their own ways. Such as video footage or the minutes recorded during government hearings.
Oh, no doubt. The world is way to complex to stay on top of everything these days. No one person can do it all.
My point was that Ground News doesn't really provide anything that other news aggregate sites do -- other than "left" and "right" labels for the outlets. Which is a really shitty way to look at the world when you could just pull the original source for whatever you're interested in. Especially considering that it's a paid service. You shouldn't have to pay someone to spoon feed you which lens to use just to keep yourself informed.
I usually avoid speculation and unverifiable "sources" as well. Maybe if the source provided docs to backup their claim and the docs have been vetted. But when it's an entire article based on "trust me bro", I just can't do it.
This makes me feel like I'm being left out of an inside joke. I don't like it lol
This was YEARS ago. Haven't been on there in over a decade now ;)
The original source. Be it scientific white papers, court filings, executive orders, the actual text of bills submitted in the house and senate. Etc, etc.
You just have to put in the effort.
It doesn't provide any real benefit other than letting you know whether a news site is "left" or "right" leaning. Which is a massive false dichotomy used to divide people.
I prefer objective truth myself.
Can confirm. As a former network support "staff" member I was paid by the both the CIA and the FBI. Neither paid very well though.
They're based on the AnonOps IRC so it is, technically, the same sect of Anonymous. Although anyone can join and start an Op there so...