Machina said:
It is. The site's source is LBRY's Twitter feed; you can cut it out of the equation entirely. |
They make claims that go beyond LBRY's twitter. For example, they make the assertion that Google's decision was arbitrary, which is the "ball" you're referring to. Yet, all they have is what we have, a cropped screenshot that may or may not be from a message sent by Google, and a screenshot which may or may not have been the one Google sent. If they were simply reporting that LBRY said X, in a neutral fashion, that would be one thing, but they are making claims beyond that.
And of course, LBRY is itself an obviously biased source, as I'm pretty sure they're on their own side. So, arguing that the potentially biased source is getting information from an obviously biased source doesn't really help. Pointing out that a source is biased does not mean that everything they say is false, but it's a warning sign for readers to be skeptical of the site's conclusions and look into it themselves. Encouraging people to consider a site's point of view is most definitely a good thing.
And... if we cut it out entirely, then all we have is LBRY's twitter feed giving their account of the situation, supported by one cropped image that they say is sent by Google. Tbh, I don't see that as worthy of much time or consideration.
What an actual good source worthy of posting would do is something like this...
Here is the video that allegedly was the cause for the app being taken down.
Here is Google's policy on what counts as inappropriate content.
- Depictions of sexual nudity, or sexually suggestive poses in which the subject is nude, blurred or minimally clothed, and/or where the clothing would not be acceptable in an appropriate public context.
- Depictions, animations or illustrations of sex acts, or sexually suggestive poses or the sexual depiction of body parts.
Then they would let the reader decide if the alleged reason for taking down the app was valid.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 27 September 2020
