I thought posting links from RW sites

[malaise]

was an abuse on DU - I'm seeing way too many of these links here.

Thank you

[bearsfootball516]

1. It is. What websites are you seeing?

[malaise]

2. I won't repost them

No way

[Miguel M]

8. Lovely.

[Hekate]

21. You could just read the TOS.

[real Cannabis calm]

26. Who would publicize Fox Snooze or shit like that?

It's worse than posting a Trump-tweet!

[watoos]

3. Quite a few sites,

that used to be progressive have been taken over by right wingers.

For sure the M$M is not our friend.

[marble falls]

4. And when gently reminded of it, the posters get angry.

[patricia92243]

5. That is the only time I opt out of jury duty. I don't know what is a right wing rag or not.

[bearsfootball516]

7. I usually use this to see if I'm not sure.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

You can enter just about any media source and it'll let you know how far right or left the source falls, and give you examples of articles that source has posted as a way to back it up.

[patricia92243]

13. Thanks - I'll bookmark this for future use.

[Hekate]

23. Thanks. Will save for reference.

[backabby-blue]

24. That site claims

Drudge Report is left wing.

[TexasTowelie]

27. There is another parody site called the Drudge Retort that is liberal.

The Web design is similar to the Drudge Report.

[bearsfootball516]

29. Here's the Drudge Report I see from them.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drudge-report/

[True Dough]

6. I think context matters

If someone is posting a right-wing link and showing support for its tortured logic, then that's a problem. But I don't mind when people bring to light how the ReThugs are strategizing an attack and pointing out the flaws in the scheme. Not everyone has a subscription to the NY Time or the WaPo, which is where you might find the left-wing version of such articles. And it's good to be informed of what the enemy is up to.

[Cartoonist]

9. Content

Quoting a source for comment should be OK, just don't provide a link so as not to increase their traffic count.

[True Dough]

10. Fair enough n/t

[malaise]

12. Agree n/t

[mitch96]

17. +1

[Kaleva]

11. The TOS clearly allows it under certain circumstances

"Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website. "

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[pwb]

14. Just saw a post from Rupert Murdochs rag.

An AOC hit piece.

[sarcasmo]

15. Used to be a thing, now it's a free for all.

[emulatorloo]

16. It is what made GD Primary 2016 so toxic

Drooling over propaganda pieces from right-wing hacks like Joe DiGenova, posting virulent anti-abortion sites, uncritically promoting endless egregious right-wing cartoons.

As someone posted upthread if you pushed back on it, you were vilified.

I hope the site owners get a handle on it this time.

[mopinko]

18. imho, this shows one great loss from the old days of mods.

we had the institutional memory to police that stuff. we used to have a pretty exhaustive list of the players. sometimes we had to take a look around at a site that we didnt know.
those are hard calls now.

it would be a good rule to allow a little commentary from alerters. the messages we used to get w alerts were often extremely helpful.

[malaise]

19. Agree 100%

[sarcasmo]

20. Now you question the three letters I won't use and your post is removed.

[jcmaine72]

22. I wish there was clarification on what constitutes a RW site.

I'll admit I'm kinda fuzzy on this. I once posted a link to a news story from both an NBC affiliate and Newsweek and was promptly told my source was "questionable".

Faux Screws...yes, RW site.
BreitFart....yes, RW (Hate) site.
National Review....yes, RW site.

But NBC and Newsweek? Hmmm....

[ck4829]

25. K&R

[LongtimeAZDem]

28. If posting a link from a site can get you alerted, then those sites should be listed in the TOS

[malaise]

30. Good point