US says Chinese spy balloon downed in February did not collect information. Yet, Biden was referring to it as a spy balloon just this month. (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

109 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] u_tamtam@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago

Can we have a policy here of not rewriting/making up titles? I'm not interested on personal takes before reaching the comments section.

[-] k_o_t@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

i kinda agree with /u/u_tamtam, it's standard practice to not change titles when posting articles to link aggregators, so most users (reasonably so) operate off of the assumption that the titles aren't altered, this gets esp confusing, when ppl change the headlines only slightly

imo it's good to have a clear line separating the article (with all its potential biases and misrepresentations) and opinions/commentary of the user, esp when lemmy allows link posts to have an attached text segment 🤷‍♀️

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

The titles in the articles are themselves editorialized and sometimes even misrepresent the content. I think the post title should reflect what was interesting about the article. You are of course free to make your own community with whatever rules you like.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I'm not understanding the contradiction here. They're saying it was a spy balloon for spying but that it failed at its task. Not sure how true that is, no way for me to tell but there's no inherent paradox here.

[-] gbin@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

What I understand from the context is that it was a spying device but they jammed the hell out of it while flying over the US then took it down.

[-] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

That's my point. The original poster is trying to draw a line between statements that the balloon was a spying device and later statements that it did not collect intelligence while it transited over US territory as evidence that it wasn't a spying device and that the former of those statements is therefore inherently a lie. My take, without assessing the truthfulness of the claims, is that the linked articles do not support such a conclusion. One can claim the device was for spying and that it also didn't collect intelligence without contradiction because the claim is that it failed to collect intelligence, not that it did not intend to do so in the first place.

load more comments (58 replies)

load more comments