234
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
234 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30908 readers
1566 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Vetting sources absolutely is helpful.
It's clear they didn't actually vet the source or read what mediabiasfactcheck said then, because at no point did they make "fake news." So the likelihood of this being AI is near zero.
Taking the top line that some group made and not actually looking at the details is not vetting a source, it's taking a quick glance as gospel. It matters that they don't make fake news because it makes this video likely real.
But I mean you do you if you just take a quick glance as gospel and don't actually, you know, fucking read anything yourself.
You keep putting "fake news" in quotations like it's something they said.
Oh so claiming it's quite possibly AI isn't directly making a claim that it's most likely fake? Interesting.
It's not even something I said lol. They're clueless.
You're not inspiring confidence in people here when purporting an obvious strawman fallacy. Please quote where I said they're "fake news" as you put in quotes no less.
Second, one demonstrates an unfortunately low level of comprehension skills, given I stated, "Don’t trust this to be anything more than AI" -- which suggests by comparative logic that there are possibly other things I trust equal to or lower than AI.
"Don't trust this to be any more than AI" directly implies that it must be fake.
No, it does not lol. AI can distort half-truths / half-lies, take things out of context, but yes can also fabricate entirely.
Remember: LOW CREDIBILITY
LMAO it's a fucking video dude. You're saying you're NOT saying it's AI while claiming it might be AI? What part of the video is real and what part is AI and what part is taken out of context. You're just pulling shit out of your ass.
Videos can't be AI?
"LOW CREDIBILITY"
You just outright refuse to read the fact that they have never been found to make up facts. That would include making fake AI videos dude.
Anyway thanks for admitting you refuse to take a look at the facts and instead are screaming ITS FAKE with no evidence to back it up other than feels.
Funny, it's like you think given their LOW CREDIBILITY that they wouldn't have a first (even assuming they haven't in the past).
You keep repeating the low credibility but you refuse to read with or engage with WHY they got that rating, and it wasn't for not presenting facts or making shit up, its purely ideological and how they PRESENT facts.
So how are they PRESENTING this that is making it biased? When they make a full report on it I expect it to be DEEPLY biased, but the video on it's own is very likely real. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
But I think you just read LOW CREDIBILITY and your brain shuts off and you cant suss out that there's a difference between actually presenting fake journalism and fake stories versus deeply misrepresenting what those facts mean. They got low credibility for BIAS, not FACTS.
Sorry I bothered to read their fucking reasoning and you won't
What fact? There is no fact. The footage remains unverified. Not even Snopes could make it out. Seems EXACTLY like they described them -- taking a half-truth and distorting it to a full-lie.
That you slam your keyboard over and over because someone wants a better source than right-wing slop is wild, so I can only conclude you're a nazi simp.
Man you and this conservative media outlet have a lot in common with MISREPRESENTING FACTS
No facts.
LOW CREDIBILITY
SNOPES: "However, the audio was too distorted to definitively confirm the specifics of the conversation. "
I guess the "video was confirmed to be authentic" part doesnt matter at all...