I didn’t say I agree with the top comment, I’m addressing the idea that this post was just among a firehose of completely arbitrary political articles, posted only for their existence.
I don’t think that’s true. I think you posted it because you are interested in 3rd party candidates. A fine and valid reason but let’s not dance around it.
This is a political news community. I posted a political news article.
If you feel this breaks the community’s guidelines for article posting, you can contact the mods. And if they agree that it breaks the community’s rules they will remove it.
I posted it because it’s political news. Or do you think that the only political news that should be posted is pro-democrat news? I’m confused about what you are trying to say.
No one, especially me, has said you broke any rules, or shouldn’t have posted this or any other article.
I’m speaking to the motivation, which is a fine motivation to have. I don’t think you post every single us politics article that is written, you have interests (which again is fine).
I’m speaking to the motivation, which is a fine motivation to have. I don’t think you post every single us politics article that is written, you have interests (which again is fine).
And that goes for the motivation of people posting the huge number of pro-democrat news articles. So I guess I’m not understanding your point.
I read an interesting news article, and posted it to a political news community.
I’ve read plenty of Harris articles too, but this sub is already filled with plenty of those. This is a diverse community, and I am adding to that diversity.
There’s not secret plan or motivation on my part. I also post lots of non-political articles to other communities as well. Lemmy strives on people posting content. I did that.
But you did post it, suggesting personal interest or perceived interest among readers here.
The article’s existence doesn’t grant it utility
And since it has at least 5 upvotes as of now and this thread has 65 comments in it, I guess that means some people were interested in it. Hmmmm…
I didn’t say I agree with the top comment, I’m addressing the idea that this post was just among a firehose of completely arbitrary political articles, posted only for their existence.
I don’t think that’s true. I think you posted it because you are interested in 3rd party candidates. A fine and valid reason but let’s not dance around it.
This is a political news community. I posted a political news article.
If you feel this breaks the community’s guidelines for article posting, you can contact the mods. And if they agree that it breaks the community’s rules they will remove it.
I posted it because it’s political news. Or do you think that the only political news that should be posted is pro-democrat news? I’m confused about what you are trying to say.
No one, especially me, has said you broke any rules, or shouldn’t have posted this or any other article.
I’m speaking to the motivation, which is a fine motivation to have. I don’t think you post every single us politics article that is written, you have interests (which again is fine).
And that goes for the motivation of people posting the huge number of pro-democrat news articles. So I guess I’m not understanding your point.
I read an interesting news article, and posted it to a political news community.
I’ve read plenty of Harris articles too, but this sub is already filled with plenty of those. This is a diverse community, and I am adding to that diversity.
There’s not secret plan or motivation on my part. I also post lots of non-political articles to other communities as well. Lemmy strives on people posting content. I did that.
Your original reply suggests impartial firehosing, which is obviously not true, as described here.
It’s not nefarious or secret, it’s just not what you originally said. You wanted different articles here and are doing it.
Dude, what are you going on about?
I posted a political news article to a political news community. What point are you even trying to make and why? Why does anybody post anything?
I thought the article was interesting, it matched the theme of the community, I posted it. I have never pretended otherwise.
Not only that, the original reply was to a guy saying no one was interested in it. And obviously the number of comments show otherwise.
I’m still now sure what you are implying. Why don’t you just be clear and say what you mean?
I am not going to, and never planned to, vote for Cornel West. lol
You’re interested in it!
You didn’t post it as some impartial conveyor belt.
That’s fine. It’s just not what you said.