World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
They do, it isn't a million. The article is deliberate sensationalism. If you read the Coast Guard's press releases, you will see they didn't say a million gallons was leaked.
From the U.S. Coast Guard press release:
https://www.news.uscg.mil/Press-Releases/Article/3593964/update-1-unified-command-monitors-responds-to-mpog11015-incident/p
So yeah, no one can go out there with a bucket and measure it, but that's probably a safe estimate.
So you don't find it questionable that this happened a week ago yet the most they've found is a couple hundred gallons?
And all these sites that claim a million, in their headlines, all say lower in their stories that there is no actual measurement and that it is only potentially?
I feel it undermines the issue when people are dishonest. I consider these headlines to be dishonest.
I regret engaging that one idiot that claims dispersants were used by BP to submerge the oil so people can't see it.
That's the kind of disinformation and dishonesty that makes it so difficult to have real outcomes. All the noise drowns out the signal.
Just FYI, we don't exactly know how much CO2 we've released, how many particles are in the atmosphere, how much water is in the ocean, etc. We use math and statistics to create estimates. They'll have some amount of error, but it is not strange. In fact, acting like someone does know the quantity exactly would make me a lot more skeptical.
Also, don't say "look at this thing..." and then when that exact thing proves you incorrect you just move the goal posts. That's called a bad faith argument. Either you had faith in the USCG report or you didn't. If you didn't, don't use it in your argument. If you did, you must accept what it says.
That's just it, the USCG DIDN'T say the leak was a million gallons. They said it could be that much.
They know there was a leak and they know roughly how much oil the pipeline holds.
That's it. That is all they said. The story headline said that the USCG said that much DID leak when they very specifically didn't say that.
Where exactly did I move the goal posts? What was my bad faith argument?
You: If you read the Coast Guard's press releases, you will see they didn't say a million gallons was leaked.
Them: From the U.S. Coast Guard press release:
You: I regret engaging...
Potential does not equal actual.
Are you that incapable of thought?
They know there was a leak and they know how much the pipeline holds but they don't know how much actually escaped.
The same press release you are quoting says, "The volume of discharged oil is currently unknown."
But the headline says more than a million gallons of oil leaked into the gulf.
If you don't understand how that is sensationalism, then you have more problems than this dumbass Internet argument.
I regret engaging because holy shit, so many of you are really fucking stupid.
Some things like this would benefit from being sensationalized though right? Would be better if a lot of people actually were pissed about this and that it would be over responded to.
I definitely hope it's less than a million gallons, but whether it's a million gallons or 300 thousand gallons or 500 this evokes much the exact same response from me. Just because it's a horrid thing wasn't an even more horrible thing doesn't make either not a bad thing.
I think people just aren't responding well because when you explain that it's an estimate and could be lower that you might be trying to downplay the situation. Like it's not 100 it's actually 80 so no one should be mad kinda thing