Why not edit the title to be a little bit less clickbait?
Maybe something like:
Mark Kelly, A Possible Democratic Veep Pick, Just Changed His Position On Protecting the Right to Organize Act
Then someone would complain that I changed the title, which is against the rules. There’s a picture of him, and the summary has his name.
Just a note that Rule 1 in the sidebar says “if your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive”, so changing it is ok as long as it improves the information as the OP suggested. We’re luckily not constrained by the terrible titles chosen by news sites to boost clicks.
They’re still running on Reddit rules
Which were terrible. My favorite was when a source capitalized the title, so anything you did would violate a rule and get it removed.
I assume as the volume of links grow, the amount of work mods would have to do in vetting editorialized headlines grow as well as some people would like to inject in their own bias. You’d see this obnoxious editorialization from time to time in .ml in the past on articles concerning USA, for example.
I’d just add the relevant info in angle brackets after the original headline, personally.
And then the actual title of the article will be changed 2 hrs later by the actual news agency.
This isn’t Reddit, we don’t have to post click-bait headlines verbatim.
I haven’t seen a lot of people get upset about altered titles on Lemmy. I feel like there’s a general understanding that an accurate title is better.
Some people cite the article’s original headline in the text below the submitted link.
This is a criticism of HuffPo. And a very valid one.
It’s more targeted at the lemming who posted this. Considering people can edit post titles and add additional text to a link post there’s not really a risk in trying something more informative. They wouldn’t need to delete their post or match some ultra rigid formatting.
I don’t have any faith in Huffington Post (or several other news outlets) deviating from clickbait. In this situation someone might not recognize the name or act and assume it’s irrelevant to them. I can see why they do it but I don’t like it.
The Lemmy software let’s you do that, but some communities require that you use the original headline.
Totally. I feel like that’s a bit of a holdover from Reddit is all and there’s usual some flexibility here so I’m saying it’s good when people utilize it.
Personally I like altering the title, including the origina title in the text, and maybe a few other articles on the topic or to add context. It doesn’t take much effort on my part and I feel like it shows I’m not just dumping links and might engage in a conversation about it.
I came to Reddit from Fark, where half the fun was making the headline funny, at least in context of the story. It was really hard for me to get used to the subreddits that insisted the headline be the original. It doesn’t bother me so much now, except I viscerally hate clickbait headlines.
I’m not sure a change in public position in order to get a big promotion is really going to give the unions the warm fuzzies. It’s better than not changing, but it sure feels like a “yeah sure, whatever” response rather than a newfound love of organized labor.
“Unions loom large in our life, and I’m supportive of the PRO Act,” Kelly said, recounting how when his mother, a police officer, was injured, her union helped her recover.
Good that his mother was helped to recover, but police unions are not generally considered part of organized labor.
Also, how’s he going to vote for legislation in the Senate if he’s VP? Unless Dems are willing to ditch the filibuster for this and let him exercise his ability to cast a tie breaker vote in a 50/50 situation this seems like evidence he’s planning to remain a Senator.
A big sign it’s him or he really wants it to be him.
I think it’s him and I couldn’t be happier with the pick.
deleted by creator
My next big donation will be with Harris announcing Kelly as her running-mate.
I don’t think he’d change position if the VP pick wasn’t all but guaranteed to him.
Gross, this guy was anti-union too?
He was not anti-union per the article. He had some critiques of the bill previously.
some anti-union critiques. Didnt want independent contractors to be allowed collective bargaining rights.
“I do have some concerns with the legislation, specifically things about who qualifies as an independent contractor. Sometimes employers often use that to their advantage. In other cases, I do think people should be able to be independent contractors.”
From the previous article that is referenced. He is not against independent contractors having bargaining rights, but he thinks there should be rules around who qualifies. I don’t necessarily agree with him but I don’t think that he should be considered anti-union for that.
One of the most contentious elements is how the law would extend collective bargaining rights to “independent contractors” who are not employees, a provision Kelly said he is concerned by.
Besides the above, all true, the Democratic Party is not a cult. Various opinions can exist at the same time.
you’re right, it’s not a cult, and I dont have to support harmful positions just because a democrat holds them.
I don’t know how particularly harmful this one is, but you’re basically right.
I dont think it’s always that cut and dry. These acts have so many individual parts and shit snuck in them. While there can be a lot of good, there’s also things that can be better or are frankly down right shit. So just becuase you vote no on something doesn’t mean you don’t want it - you could want it better.
I think that settles that he’ll be the VP pick for Harris.
I think he gets to choose who replaces him for two years - which is a big advantage to having him as a VP pick for the Democrats. I.e., no special election.
deleted by creator
Cue a Sinema-like emerging for the special election.
There won’t be one
“Why would the Democrats even consider a senator for the vice presidency if the senator doesn’t support the PRO Act?” John Samuelsen, president of the Transport Workers Union, told ABC News.
Why would so many union members vote for Trump? The world works in mysterious ways.
The Teamsters sit in those trucks all day long listening to talk radio.
Some of us listen to a lot of punk. I had a fellow Teamster one morning listening to Tucker Carlson so I started my Playlist with this and cranked it up: https://youtu.be/-MkRuV0aCcI?si=SSof6R6eOZOsEvXq
They could really use a generous dose of Teamosil
your foot’s bleeding
Just because you’re a union member doesn’t mean you’re socially progressive too, a lot of these guys just don’t like stuff like trans issues (which is why the right keeps talking about it even though trans people are like 1 in 1000 and while important for trans people themselves and their families, you’d be crazy to base your voting preferences on that issue alone).
In addition to that, there’s immigration, which has been encouraged by the owner class as a way to break unions and undercut wages (not in a great replacement kind of way, more in the sense that H-1B visas tie residency to a single employer, and illegal immigrants are in an equally precarious situation they wouldn’t risk unionising or even asking for improved conditions or a raise), democrats haven’t really figured out how to properly talk about this either (the answer to that one is probably to go hard after employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants, maybe offer green cards to illegal immigrants that dob in their employers).
While he’s completely disengenuous, Trump has been saying some things that sound right to union members about immigration and shipping jobs overseas, and he fooled enough of them in this way. If you live in an area that has been in decline for decades, Make America Great Again is a great slogan, and people can fill that in with whatever they imagine.
I would rather not see him as a pick for VP, mostly because he is far to eager to use his wife as a political prop.
