I’m not understanding the contradiction here. They’re saying it was a spy balloon for spying but that it failed at its task. Not sure how true that is, no way for me to tell but there’s no inherent paradox here.
US already admitted earlier that this is in fact a weather balloon, and this is further proof that it was not any sort of a spy balloon. The whole drama was completely made up, and the highest US authorities continue to spread lies months after.
Umm, source on an official US statement calling it a weather balloon and denying it was a spy balloon? China’s alleged failure to collect data due to mitigations and countermeasures doesn’t mean it’s a weather balloon.
You have no facts to backup “US spreading lies”. No evidence whatsoever. You have the US’ story, China’s story, and millions of photos of a absurdly large apparatus floating across the US that looks nothing like a weather balloon.
The context for the discussion is US admitting that the balloon did not collect information. 🤡
It did not “collect” information
@zephyreks …but it wasn’t from lack of trying… the countermeasures the US used kept it from collecting any sensitive intelligence. That’s the part you propagandists keep leaving out.
It did not collect information. You’re hallucinating statements that don’t exist and you’re also hallucinating propagandists that don’t exist.
I’d ask you to get it checked out, but I’m afraid that you’d hallucinate a doctor that doesn’t exist.
Can we have a policy here of not rewriting/making up titles? I’m not interested on personal takes before reaching the comments section.
The titles in the articles are themselves editorialized and sometimes even misrepresent the content. I think the post title should reflect what was interesting about the article. You are of course free to make your own community with whatever rules you like.
The titles in the articles are themselves editorialized and sometimes even misrepresent the content.
How is that a defense for letting anyone rewrite titles? Silly idea, if the source is that bad, how about just not using it?
There’s nothing to defend here. The reason there’s a free form field for the title is precisely allow people to write titles for their submissions. Meanwhile, content of the article can be fine even when there’s a clickbaity headline, or sometimes it’s useful to link an article as an illustration or a commentary without endorsing it.
The only way people would get confused is if they didn’t bother actually looking at the article, at which point they don’t have anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion. So, not really sure what problem you’re trying to solve to be honest.
