This is probably the most horrifyingly depressing article I’ve read in the past decade.

Copium at it’s most refined form

I mean, I appreciate the fact that I’m getting down voted because it means we’ve moderated this community well enough that nobody thinks this is serious. I take this as a positive.

I acknowledge this.

Please add a sarcasm tag.

You can also do this with a bike if you’re skilled at controlling your bike’s direction from the seat pole.

Ad Fontes reports SCMP’s reliability as 41.56, which is higher than the Washington Post (39.42) and on par with the New York Times (42.00), Al Jazeera (41.55), and USA Today (41.27). Ad Fontes ranks it lower than institutions like the BBC (44.72) or NPR (43.49) as well as newswire services like Reuters (45.62), AFP (47.15), and Associated Press (45.64).

Your other references are Wikipedia and Reddit. Are you sure you don’t want to cite what Google Gemini says as well?

Edit: for reference, Ad Fontes puts FOX News at a 35.49, MSNBC at a 34.39, and the New York Post at a 32.98.

Please use direct sources where possible. Post locked, please see this post for the direct source: https://lemmy.ca/post/18003376

Really? Citing MBFC? What are you going to do next, ask an LLM what it thinks?

If you want to judge your media consumption off of some guy with no pictures online, no public interviews, and a “strong grasp of the scientific process” gained through (supposedly) a physiology degree and half a communications degree, be my guest. Just don’t launder it’s reliability here.

If you’re going to condemn a source, please provide evidence of cases where they have misreported in the past on similar issues.

For example, you could point to the New York Times’ article by Anat Schwartz as evidence that the New York Times has pro-Israel bias.

Anyone who’s used both Douyin and TikTok would see that the most salient differences are that the content is not shared and some regulatory details like requiring a Chinese number to register for Douyin.

If you haven’t, then you’re clueless.

Conflating code with DNA is both absurd and insane. Most software does not have a common codebase. Most DNA does.

If you’re going to call out a source, come with evidence. For example, a time when China intentionally misrepresented import/export data to make Chinese companies look better.

Douyin and TikTok share like 90% of their codebase.

ByteDance operates Douyin in China.

If it’s the truth then cite a legitimate source. It’s not that complicated.

The fact could be “water is wet” or “the sky is blue” and I still wouldn’t let you cite a large language model.

Please do not cite large language models as if they are valid sources.

It’s the primary source, but I do agree…

Thanks for posting the single article which does not say “France is the first country to enshrine abortion rights in its constitution.” It’s not. Yugoslavia was. In 1974.