• mbp@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    How was that a decision not fueled by pure desperation? Who advised this beyond the consulting group that was previously working with Morgan Stanley? Oh my god

  • athos77@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not that I doubt the content, but I’d really prefer that we don’t accept random YouTube channels the same as news. This is probably better suited for videos.

    • Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a politics community, not specifically news. Plus the video lists a link to the sources they used in the description. I agree that folks should take a skeptical eye to any videos posted, but outright dismissing all videos is not the solution.

    • bermuda@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why not, exactly? If you don’t like or trust the content that one format of media provides then you are more than welcome to report it to the staff of the community, but the fact that one is a visual media and another is reading doesn’t make it unfit for a community about politics, especially when the topic LITERALLY IS politics.

      To me this just reads like insecurity. You want politics to be more “mature” than news which is why you don’t watch youtube videos.