one places comes out and alleges he's X, all the others agree and say he's X

none of them actually go and watch his video's to confirm it.

That newsbuster article that was submitted earlier has the headline that Patreon changed their rules...I ask again, has there been a terms of service update on their behalf? Because that article gives a distorted representation of the events its covering

None of them?

How could you even know that?

fine, the majority of mainstream sites.

theres obviusly the more niche blogger types that will watch his content, and people like tim pool

does Tim watch his content?

i'd assume he does when commentating on specific drama surrounding sargon

Sure, it'd help, the more the better

However, being fan driven subscriber and being a discovery driven consumer can both yield healthy understanindg

But both may be subject to blindness from bias or knowing intent to enage the topic without full consideration

looking on patreons sites it doesy say they've updated the community guidlines, but the legal was updated 4days ago.

the headline on the article shouldn't matter though, the article was stating that they just changing previous ruling to justify banning him

titles are rather hyperbolic to drive clicks

did anyone saw this video where jacqueline hart triple double down on her PR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7hvZee-PQ

its not so much a change in rules as its a change in intepretation of the rules

basically patreon is now on PMS 24/7

nope hadn;t seen tht, thanks for the link

lol jokes = agitator
>not understanding how hitpieces work

Tim went over this already in his own videos too

also i dont understand why people are promoting wranglestar as some big youtuber annoyed at this, he has 1m subs but has a very low reach

Come on @A Haunted Army the headline should matter

dont let them off the hook that easy

it should but considering how they're innacurate more often then not i really don't care.

wha?

>site says person is allegedly X in article
>other sites source that site
>b-but all these articles say he's X!!!!!

>Original source is some Plebbitor

i'm saying i don't care if headlines are innacurate as long as the information in said aritcle is accurate.

i'll take issue if the headline is an outright line instead of just hyperbolic clickbait though

Sargon did state that Heyer died from a heart attack. I think he got that information from Millenial Woes. Sargon later issued a correction

But the adience is larger than just you, and a lot of readers begin forming opinions , and its byeond you and I for editorial integrity in any publisher, but, you do form your own conclusions about whos right and whos wrong

why are you even arguing this?

Because you're inaccurate

where am i inaccurate?

And selectively excluding some information as cotrect or not, that others do not (newsbuster article)

so i shouldn't process articles to filter out bullshit and get to the "facts" ?

when reading articles i typically exclude the headline and all the opinion fluff, focus on the numbers and direct quotes, double check the actaul source myself where applicable

No you should

i'm confused as to what the problem is now

clickbait