Nope, that's not how it works.
There are instances that only allow up votes. There are people that will up vote any post by a dev as a show of appreciation for the effort, without necessarily thinking about or agreeing with the changes.
If you want a poll, then you have to do a proper poll. Up- and down votes are not it.
It seems like "the new York times company" and "the new York times" are different entities, the "company" one seems to fill a role similar to Bloomberg or Reuters. Which makes it less strange for the Times contacting the Times by wireless.
Before 1989 copyright notices had to be in all works in the usa : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice And since different articles can have different sources, they probably gave each article a separate copyright notice.
My advice: Don't take parental advice from an ai bot.
Nowadays Finland is the go to example on misinformation education: https://osis.bg/?p=4450&lang=en
An article with some examples and explanation from Finnish teachers: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/10/world/europe/finland-misinformation-classes.html
"All this comic does is bend history into absolute knots to try and sell an image of what a democratic revolution would look like, but the tone and telling it represents is blatantly revisionist to a fucking maddening degree."
I'd say that's what they're talking about.
And I agree with them, imo this comic is absolutely not working for getting the intended message across.
Edit for clarification: i realized during first reading that the devil's advocate in the comic was meant to represent USA republicans, but I still think that the comic doesn't work.
Imo it's much more likely to have never been an actual piece of fruit. The story is probably an allegoric warning for some taboo subject and now we can only speculate on what was originally meant.
My theory: Adam and Eve were convinced by Adam's one eyed snake to fornicate, but then their dad found out and kicked them out.
Convergent evolution. Some eagles are evolving into chickens. A new species of murder chickens.
Your alternative titles really highlight how little you value factuality.
Hezbollah did not claim to be launching a pre-emptive attack. And claiming that they launched a pre-emptive attack after they were already attacked is ... Weird.
No one is reporting that Hezbollah was launching these rockets in self defence, because Hezbollah has already let it be known that their attack was a retaliation for the murder of one of their commanders in july.
No news source worth their salt is going to use those titles, because it's straight up inventing alternate facts.
Your 4 examples of what you want to portray as "non credible reporting" are professionals. Unlike you, they're not just going to invent news to push their narrative. Yes they have their biases, but unlike your alternate facts, their reporting is based on actual facts.
Hezbollah counter-attacking after being attacked by Israel, does not mean that Hezbollah would have attacked if they had not been attacked first. If your neighbour is a bully, then it's probably best to not be a pushover.
What does lend the "pre-emptive" claim credibility, is that afterwards Hezbollah said that they had retaliated for the murder of one of their commanders in Beirut. So the Hezbollah attack was not a counter-attack, but rather an attack that they had been preparing for weeks already.
Lots of us know this. Lots of us can also see that the 4 titles that you posted are not an example of this.
Some of those article titles that you are trying to paint as inaccurate, are in fact highly accurate. I can't find anything wrong with the titles of the guardian and the new York Times that you posted. They are reporting a thing that happened and a thing that was said. They make it very clear that the "pre-emptive" thing is a claim of Israel and not a fact.
Unlike your claim in the OP, The Guardian also doesn't have a credibility of high on that shitty mbfc site, but only "mixed".
Yep, this is a good example of what actual inaccurate/deceitful reporting would be like. Unlike the headlines in the post of the op, your made up title is reporting things that didn't happened, and your quotes are not things that Hamas' spokespeople have said. It is vaguely based on things that have happened, but it's mostly just made up and thus completely inaccurate and deceitful.
I'm sorry if I come across as preachy in the below post, but I wanted to try and explain to you where the critique is coming from. And also that it's not personal or any widespread resentment.
I (and many others) get what a thankless and also necessary job moderating is. It's not easy to do it well, it's frustrating, it's thankless and without it the community would be dead. But being a moderator and sticking out your neck brings you exposure and you are guaranteed to meet more asshats than you ever thought existed. But the users are not one homogenous group, it's not because one user has flung abuse at moderators, that all users are now suddenly resentful of moderators.
The person you are replying to, put a good bit of time in listing what comments were most up voted, which are probably the comments that found most support amongst the users in that thread. In the same way that we should not be dismissive of what you do or say, you shouldn't be dismissive of what others do or say (or up vote). Mutual respect and all that.
Self reflection is also important, it's important to realize and accept that it is possible to be wrong about something. Doing a mea culpa and moving on is far easier in the long term than doubling down and digging a deeper hole, yet it's a lot rarer because it hurts our ego in the short term.
Their final point about a problem with handling feedback rings true to me:
You (not you personally, but the team that did that feedback thread) have apparently treated up- and down votes on a thread as a poll and a popular mandate for action, but up- and down votes are not a poll and most (probably most) people don't use them as such.
Up- and down votes on comments are useful for finding which remarks resonated with or turned away other users. They are not a poll either, and most upvoted are not automatically most correct at all, but they give you a chance to read the room.
You (now you personally) have thrown shade on the people that up voted comments against the bot, by insinuating that those people might have been bots themselves and that therefore their opinions are irrelevant. Yes it's possible that there are some users using alts, but all those users? Not very likely.
The best feedback I saw in that thread was not in the up or down votes, it was in the comments themselves. There were some very compelling arguments as to why using a biased site to display bias, was a bad idea. Those comments also had quite a bit of upvotes, so the way I read the room, that was a popular sentiment.
The person you are replying to made a few arguments and one scathing critique which they probably hoped that you would improve on in the future. Imo a polite disagreement with your previous statements. You respond by being dismissive of his arguments and acting like it's a personal attack. They were sticking to facts, you're making it about you as a person. I really don't think that was their intent.