this post was submitted on 30 May 2025
142 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23679 readers
3053 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://europe.pub/post/986913

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This is the mark of oppressive regimes, right? The details aren't what matters (or, really, how they were drawn), but the plausible appearance of conclusions that fit the party line. Criticism? Just ignorable dissidents that no one important will hear.

We're going to see a lot more of this, as chatbots are, unfortnately, rather good at making shallowly plausible walls of text. It's easy for a lazy, incompetent person to do.

AI can be used to fact check papers too (for example, programatically following citations to see if they're real, uncontroversial, or at least somewhat sensible), but it's more technical to implement, and even if it wasn't, that doesn't even matter. This admin can simply shrug of any longwinded criticism as partisan and move onto the next controversy, knowing full well attention spans are too short to care. In other words, the information environment is the fundamental issue here.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Another investigation by The Washington Post found that at least 37 of the 522 citations appeared multiple times throughout the report. Notably, the URLs of several references included “oaicite,” a marker that OpenAI applies to responses provided by artificial intelligence models like ChatGPT, which strongly suggests its use to develop the report.

. . . [Bullshit Barbie] Leavitt described the errors as “formatting issues”

. . . The Washington Post notes that the MAHA report file was updated on Thursday to remove some of the oaicite markers and replace some of the non-existent sources with alternative citations.

And the article finishes off by letting the administration lie openly and unchallenged again.

Washington Post is, at best, a bunch of spineless cowards.

Still I'm not sure this late in the game, who could still possibly be on the fence about RFK. Either you know he's a grifting lying piece of trash, or you fell for the cult, and any strong condemnation from media based on rationality and logic will only make you dig your heels in stronger.

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemm.ee 3 points 23 hours ago

Yeah. Most of us already know. But they're going to have their way with us anyway, so what's the use?

If you can't get out, accept.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

~~riddled with~~ be