3 ms·
I get your point about emotional pollution of a debate about this, but the OP is MEP, so calling a news site to be a "primary source" doesn't make much sense to
by marbu 5y ago
I get your point about emotional pollution of a debate about this, but the OP is MEP, so calling a news site to be a "primary source" doesn't make much sense to me in this case.
You can either describe the new site article as "more neutral" instead (which is usually useful in most political debates no matter of your personal opinion), or link to report from EU Parliament for an official report as actual primary source here.
- dijit 5y agoInteresting distinction; to my mind it is not a neutral source, it’s the primary source. A neutral source would be one that is removed from having an opinion, but since this is the institution itself it is not possible for it to be neutral; like a Facebook blog post talking about Facebook content policies, it cannot be unbiased. This is one MEPs opinion and he likely doesn’t speak for the institution that has pushed the bill, but the source I supplied is representing the institution.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago> but the OP is MEP They are the worst kind of neutral sources. Talking from experience. EDIT: I've worked as a tech consultant on this matter and commented on previous submissions . MEPs are constantly lobbying for their own side, which is completely normal, but their job is the exact opposite of being neutral My position as a regular citizen, not as consultant, is that secrecy is not a given, privacy is. If I send a letter to someone, the letter is not secret. Anyone who can read can open it and read the content Privacy on the other hand means that the aforementioned letter cannot be opened by anyone who's not been authorized. It's against the law.