this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
7 points (63.0% liked)

World News

32143 readers
948 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] u_tamtam@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Can we have a policy here of not rewriting/making up titles? I'm not interested on personal takes before reaching the comments section.

[–] k_o_t@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

i kinda agree with /u/u_tamtam, it's standard practice to not change titles when posting articles to link aggregators, so most users (reasonably so) operate off of the assumption that the titles aren't altered

this gets esp confusing, when ppl change the headlines only slightly

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not understanding the contradiction here. They're saying it was a spy balloon for spying but that it failed at its task. Not sure how true that is, no way for me to tell but there's no inherent paradox here.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

US already admitted earlier that this is in fact a weather balloon, and this is further proof that it was not any sort of a spy balloon. The whole drama was completely made up, and the highest US authorities continue to spread lies months after.

[–] steltek@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (52 children)

Umm, source on an official US statement calling it a weather balloon and denying it was a spy balloon? China's alleged failure to collect data due to mitigations and countermeasures doesn't mean it's a weather balloon.

You have no facts to backup "US spreading lies". No evidence whatsoever. You have the US' story, China's story, and millions of photos of a absurdly large apparatus floating across the US that looks nothing like a weather balloon.

load more comments (52 replies)
[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That part of the story seems yet to be cited. Going by the article accompanying the post title, there's no such admission. Manufacturing international incidents for political reasons is not a new thing and not new to the US either , but purely on grounds of reading comprehension alone there's no contradiction here and no admission of anything either, as a matter of fact the claim the US is making is supposed to bolster their position by claiming the balloon was unable to spy on them despite best efforts. The veracity of the claim is another matter.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›