Herstory Begins Now posted:

The status quo is that if someone earnestly links to something from a RT or VOA tier source without a fuckoff huge caveat header of 'this is how it's being spun by official sources' it's going to get roasted and treated with hella skepticism.

That said, it's kind of neither here nor there because 1) people barely ever post that poo poo here anymore for the above mentioned reason and 2) I don't believe there's been any particular agitation to be more permissive towards people posting dogshit sources like that and 3) people self-policing and making a good-faith effort to put a minute or two into checking out just who they're posting is easier on everyone and is all it takes to avoid that particular embarrassment.

Tweets from known unreliable people get treated similarly, eg look what happens whenever someone posts a louise mensch tweet in here or someone inadvertently reposts some qanon tweet.

That aside, I'm very curious what people feel is a reasonable consequence for people misrepresenting what they post/reposting some misleading, outragey twitter bait or similar?

And on that note, I'm gathering generally that most people want to return to the previous standard of articles getting posted with a short paragraph of framing and preferably also an extract of particularly relevant points?