General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA reminder to all DUers reposting content from social media: Check your sources
Given the situation in the Middle East, it's understandable that people want to bring the most up-to-date information they can find to DU. In principle, I'm absolutely not opposed to that. In practice, however, it means that some of the content now being brought to DU is being reposted from sources which are not appropriate for our community.
I am talking about social media sources which traffic in right-wing content, racist content, homophobic content, antisemitic content, and conspiracy content, including anti-vax conspiracy theories. Or, more often than not, all of the above.
I will note that DU's "Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources" rule does carve out an exception for such sources:
Note that if you want to use a source which would typically be considered inappropriate for DU, you need to to give a clear reason for why you're doing it. If the purpose is to point out that MAGA media is turning against Trump, or if you want to highlight the awfulness of a particular X post by some right-wing public figure, then you need to give a clear explanation that that is your intent.
But simply reposting content from neo-Nazi or other extremist social media accounts, just because they've criticized Trump or other Republicans, or because they've posted an update about the war with Iran, does NOT count under the rule exception.
As you know, DU relies on the community to police itself via the Jury system. Of course, not all members serving on Juries are aware of whether certain X accounts are inappropriate, and people are often not likely to bother to check. This can make it easy for inappropriate sources to slip through. If Jury members see a post bashing Trump or Republicans, they are probably likely to think it's okay, and will be unlikely to click through to the X account only to find that it is selling white supremacist T-shirts.
So:
1) To DU members who are reposting content from social media: Please check your sources before posting to make sure that the source is appropriate for DU.
2) To DU members who are serving on Juries for the "Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources" rule: Please don't just assume that a social media source is okay if it is bashing Trump -- actually check the source to make sure that it is appropriate for DU. If you do not wish to click through to a social media site to check the source, it is perfectly okay to cancel out of the Jury and let someone else take a look.
Thanks for reading, and for being part of the effort to keep DU clear of bigoted sources and content.
UpInArms
(54,815 posts)That was very helpful
demmiblue
(39,633 posts)Also, stop recommending /highlighting X content. That would be a good start (imo, of course).
obamanut2012
(29,321 posts)SCreencaps, okay, but no links.
CaptainTruth
(8,169 posts)I imagine others here feel the same.
demmiblue
(39,633 posts)That seems to help quite a bit.
niyad
(131,792 posts)leftstreet
(40,236 posts)It's where everyone finds mainstream and citizen news sources, breaking headlines, statements from elected politicians, etc
It's greatest selling point is Trump no longer posts there! He used to suck the oxygen out of the room, but now I think he just posts on his made-up Truth Social
demmiblue
(39,633 posts)I can find all of that on Bluesky. In fact, several of the accounts I follow are leaving/have left X.
This is exactly right. The Onion quietly left Twitter a month ago and... our weekly subscribers went up. It's because we're doing well here, on Instagram and on YouTube.
— Tim Onion (@bencollins.bsky.social) 2026-02-23T01:51:27.338Z
As a business, being on Twitter is somewhere between useless or detrimental, unless you're selling boner pills.
leftstreet
(40,236 posts)jmbar2
(7,949 posts)Great posts this morning from a journalist that translates Russian news, Dave Troy, Anne Applebaum, Texas breaking election news, earthquake/tsunami alerts, Aaron Rupar, Ukrainian civilian posts, my two Senators' alerts, court verdicts, etc.
Nittersing
(8,314 posts)I think "reliable news sources" is gonna get trickier and trickier.
My thanks to everyone for cross-checking!!
murielm99
(32,936 posts)excluded here. They are no better than Fox. There are other ways to post the news.
jfz9580m
(16,938 posts)I went on DemocracyNow! just now and found this.
https://www.democracynow.org/2026/3/11/amy_littlefield_abortion_killers_roe_nation
I am careful posting from leftwing sites that do attack the Democratic party a lot (though sometimes those are the places where a lot of independent lefty thought persists away from electoral politics). They can be a little ossified in how they present content I largely agree with though (The Nation, DNow! etc).
But the left is one part electoral politics and there I agree that left wing sites can be impractical.
But on left wing thought separate from elections, I find newer lefty sites like Current Affairs very useful and less hidebound in examining reality than the msm.
greatauntoftriplets
(178,881 posts)MustLoveBeagles
(15,930 posts)GusBob
(8,231 posts)and I will be a butthead, I apologize
I know you have addressed this before,,, but again,,, what about fake war news (aka propaganda) from liberal leaning sources?
It has been said "the first casualty of war is the truth" I think as a newsgroup, truth should be preserved
niyad
(131,792 posts)stopdiggin
(15,355 posts)- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
The poster has a completely legitimate point.
However - for the purposes of this this thread it shall be noted that DU has specific rules against right wing sources and agenda - while the same is not true for simple misinformation and trash posting. And, in any case - it's kind of up to the community to some extent to ride herd ...
niyad
(131,792 posts)statement? Got it. Thanks. I wanted to see what I might have missed, since one cannot possibly keep up with everything out there.
stopdiggin
(15,355 posts)within back and forth discussion.
If I (or another poster) am not willing to go do 30 minutes of research finding 'examples' and 'exhibits' (to satisfy your demands for 'documentation' ) - then of course the point I make is construed to be illegitimate or without foundation. Screw that! I am not your dogsbody - or your research assistant! Find your own 'examples'! Meanwhile - my statement and opinion stands on its own merit. Just like yours!
Point being - like I said - often employed as a cheap tactic ...
niyad
(131,792 posts)you could not possibly be expected to take the time to do, despite having accused me of such, at least by implication. Duly noted. remdi95.
niyad
(131,792 posts)statement? Got it. Thanks. I wanted to see what I might have missed, since one cannot possibly keep up with everything out there.
From this week actually, I dont wanna "call out" a poster, thats not my vibe. The inaccuracies were pointed about by diligent DUers in the meat of the thread, but nobody seems to read thru the posts like we do.
I am uncertain, in general, if some of the war reporting is accurate from either side. Perhaps you would agree that one must be circumspect in anything one reads online, anywhere. Back in the heady days of DU verification was requested for claims "Got a link for that?" Remember ? Now with click bait stuff, the very links can be bogus
EarlG has address this topic and I am dead-horsing a pet peeve, I apologize
niyad
(131,792 posts)seems to get shorter by the day.
orangecrush
(29,966 posts)
MiHale
(12,922 posts)Interesting idea above that screen capture of the X post
dickthegrouch
(4,477 posts)I have some sites blocked by firewall rules and others rendered useless by local resolution to 127.0.0.1 so Im not going there to check.
I think DU could institute a different colored square for posts that include a link to known rightwing sites.
Alice Kramden
(2,932 posts)Bookmarked
BlueKota
(5,266 posts)I quit X when Muskrat took over. I still see a lot of posts, however, around various social media sites saying this politician humiliated this other politician on such and such a t.v. program or podcast. I reasoned, however, if there was no video or audio, of said interaction, it is most likely a fabrication. Most times it turns out neither of the named politicians were even guests on the shows, the nights these incidents were supposed to have taken place.
I also Google to see, if any other sources are listed that backup the claims. Also a lot of times I come here to see whether something has been proven true or false.
True Dough
(26,426 posts)This is definitely by design from the likes of Trump and Putin, who want the masses to believe that they are the only purveyors of truth when, in actuality, both are hateful, self-serving liars.
EarlG
(23,587 posts)this is not about truth or lies or fact checking. That is a separate issue which I've addressed many times before. (In a nutshell, this is the Internet, and people should always be cautious about what they read and share, and the best way to counter factually incorrect information on DU is to do so publicly by responding to that information.)
In this case, however, I'm specifically talking about folks bringing content to DU from sources which are clearly inappropriate -- social media influencers who typically traffic in highly bigoted content, but from time to time happen to post something that DUers are in agreement with (for example, criticizing Trump), which then gets reposted on DU. Those influencers should not be platformed on DU.
SSJVegeta
(2,767 posts)"Dont believe everything you see on the internet."
-Abraham Lincoln
Wounded Bear
(64,196 posts)PunkinPi
(5,267 posts)Peacetrain
(24,288 posts)Always best to double check sources before posting, good advice and a good reminder ..
sueh
(1,952 posts)Marthe48
(23,043 posts)Please keep politics out of the Lounge. I don't alert on political posts in the Lounge, but I trash them.
Thank you.
lindysalsagal
(22,894 posts)2naSalit
(102,121 posts)We needed that!