Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Facebook admitted Sunday that it had blocked links to the Wikileaks trove of emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee.
In a Twitter post late Saturday, WikiLeaks accused the social media giant of "censorship" and gave its followers an online workaround, saying "try using https://archive.is."
The WikiLeaks allegation followed a firestorm of controversy that erupted earlier this year when former Facebook workers admitted routinely suppressing conservative news.
Source: https://nypost.com/2016/07/24/facebook-admits-to-blocking-wikileaks-links-in-dnc-email-hack/
(Score: 5, Touché) by takyon on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:20PM
Attacking the messenger again? Yawn.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36892533 [bbc.com]
https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/757098399883681792 [twitter.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:31PM
There, that was easy, wasn't it?
So why not just link to Auntie Beeb in the first place?
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:52PM
Even if you don't go that far, you could perhaps have at least tried to find a link in a publication that you favour, to give a - to you at least - more reliable write-up.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:27AM
I'll tell you exactly why this submitter didn't link to Auntie in the first place. I discovered this story in my news feeds. Specifically, I found it on RT. I wanted to submit it from IRC, via the bots. That is, I was being lazy. The bots have this thing about RT, and generally fail to make the submissions from RT. So, I did a Google search for the story. I got at least a dozen matching hits, and hundreds of near matches. I scrolled down the page, and picked one. I don't recall seeing the BBC among the hits.
So, it was more or less a random choice, and it happened to be the Post.
Now, if a few more people were making quality submissions, this substandard submission would probably have been passed over.
That, Sir, is a hint.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:16AM
Or, baring anything else, RESEARCH THE FUCKING STORY YOURSELF.
All of 10 seconds on google could have confirmed the story from other sources, and possibly given different points of view, which makes for a FAR more interesting post than "I don't accept The New York Post as a credible source. Pshaw."
There, that was easy, wasn't it?
So easy you couldn't manage it yourself.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:29AM
Did you miss the word "lazy"?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:48AM
You could always submit a better story - to add to the 2 that you have already submitted earlier this year. We always need more material from which to choose stories for the front page.
And you might also log in and use your Username - or perhaps you are just being lazy in much the same way that Runaway1956 admitted he was being when he accepted a link without supporting it with a handful of others. :)