i don’t like this kind of interaction, i see it all the time. We read the articles and watch the videos to gather more information, to get the details, but article/video titles shouldn’t be misleading, it totally hints that that’s what all was about, and there is plenty of characters left to mention otherwise
Yeah you are right, and the full video reference is a couple clicks in. Another lemmy commentor linked the youtube video directly which helps relieve the confusion which you identified.
It’s nobody’s fault but your own that you did not actually watch a video or read an article. Don’t watch/read, don’t comment. Easy. The title isn’t deceptive just because it isn’t a perfect TL;DR for lazy internet forum users.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this title. It’s not clickbait and it accurately describes the content. You’re just upset you got caught out saying reactive, incorrect things about a video you didn’t watch.
No policies yet…just straight up attacks?
Governments are dum
60 seconds, and did you watch?
Policies listed: addressing gun violence, women’s bodies, child poverty, healthcare, and treasonous traitors.
Just wait for the next 60 seconds!!
i don’t like this kind of interaction, i see it all the time. We read the articles and watch the videos to gather more information, to get the details, but article/video titles shouldn’t be misleading, it totally hints that that’s what all was about, and there is plenty of characters left to mention otherwise
I don’t like it either, but blame the article and editors, not the OP/commentors.
True, but /c/politics does not require using the original title 🤔
@[email protected] Would you consider editing the title?
OP seems to have pulled through, now mentions a few seconds on legal woes rather than implying the whole thing was about it.
Cool - Thanks OP!
I’m mostly just annoyed that the top comment got away with slagging the video as being an attack video when it wasn’t.
I don’t blame OP at all; it was just a trash headline from ABC.
/cc @[email protected]
OP reply comes through a bit condescending, despite clickbaity title.
Yeah you are right, and the full video reference is a couple clicks in. Another lemmy commentor linked the youtube video directly which helps relieve the confusion which you identified.
It’s nobody’s fault but your own that you did not actually watch a video or read an article. Don’t watch/read, don’t comment. Easy. The title isn’t deceptive just because it isn’t a perfect TL;DR for lazy internet forum users.
if you expect readers to do their homework, then writers should also do theirs
Lemmy’s a fucking news aggregator, amongst other things.
Author your own fucking posts if you don’t appreciate mine.
Fucking whiners.
the comment you just posted is the whiniest in this whole thread
Sorry for your loss.
thank for changing the title btw
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this title. It’s not clickbait and it accurately describes the content. You’re just upset you got caught out saying reactive, incorrect things about a video you didn’t watch.
the title got changed, this is not the original
Sorry for your illiteracy. Education for people like you is a policy of hers as well.