3 ms·

I'm reluctant to link to them because they were all Drudge Report style aggregators of the type that are frowned upon by HN. Anyone curious can just Google "Rom

by rpm4321 14y ago

I'm reluctant to link to them because they were all Drudge Report style aggregators of the type that are frowned upon by HN. Anyone curious can just Google "Romney win riots" and see for themselves. We're talking hundreds or thousands of tweets of this nature. To be honest, I'm not really bothered by either because it really just amounts to verbal graffiti. I don't think any of those tweeting were future black panther revolutionaries, any more than I think the ones featured in this post were future James Earl Rays. They're all just lacking empathy, common sense, and inhibition on Twitter.

poppysan 14y ago
There is a reason those are not acceptable sources...
- rpm4321 14y ago
  Mostly agree, in the same way that HuffPo isn't, but they provided direct links to the tweets, and with a little searching on twitter.com, it wasn't hard to find tons of tweets in the same vein.
- crusso 14y ago
  Bah, I read news from as many sources as I can. I find that when people turn up their noses at FoxNews, the Drudge Report, Huffpo, or Salon just because of the source - it's usually because they're insecure about their fragile belief system... scared that they might read something that's true which will force them to re-think their positions.
  - rpm4321 14y ago
    Agreed, but HN has set a pretty high standard for sourcing, much to its credit. I wouldn't feel bad about posting ideological material from the WSJ, National Review, or NYT, but I would never post Drudge, HuffPo, Breitbart, Slate, etc. to HN, even though I check them out regularly just to get the temperature of the national discourse, and get a heads up on those occasional outlier stories that they're ahead of the curve on. Besides, the foaming at the mouth, politics as bloodsport commentary can be a kind of entertaining guilty pleasure, kind of like outsider art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art
  - hughlomas 14y ago
    Yeah, I inform my world view with Cosmopolitan and the The National Enquirer as well.

by rpm4321 14y ago

poppysan 14y ago

There is a reason those are not acceptable sources...

rpm4321 14y ago
Mostly agree, in the same way that HuffPo isn't, but they provided direct links to the tweets, and with a little searching on twitter.com, it wasn't hard to find tons of tweets in the same vein.
crusso 14y ago
Bah, I read news from as many sources as I can. I find that when people turn up their noses at FoxNews, the Drudge Report, Huffpo, or Salon just because of the source - it's usually because they're insecure about their fragile belief system... scared that they might read something that's true which will force them to re-think their positions.
- rpm4321 14y ago
  Agreed, but HN has set a pretty high standard for sourcing, much to its credit. I wouldn't feel bad about posting ideological material from the WSJ, National Review, or NYT, but I would never post Drudge, HuffPo, Breitbart, Slate, etc. to HN, even though I check them out regularly just to get the temperature of the national discourse, and get a heads up on those occasional outlier stories that they're ahead of the curve on. Besides, the foaming at the mouth, politics as bloodsport commentary can be a kind of entertaining guilty pleasure, kind of like outsider art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art
- hughlomas 14y ago
  Yeah, I inform my world view with Cosmopolitan and the The National Enquirer as well.