I don’t expect them to. Even if I provided a link from whatever their approved list of sources happens to be I doubt I’d get real engagement anyway. It’s mostly for interested third parties.
I don’t know, I think it’s good to somewhat push people to confront their contradictions, and they won’t if they think the claim cannot be trusted. If the claim is made by some lib source they trust though? At least they would have to confront the facts and couldn’t dismiss them outright.
That is if they’re discussing (or just reading) in good faith
I think it’s important in public spaces especially, where the person you’re discussing with is not the only one reading the messages & people of varying political stances are around. In that context, a NYT article that is pro-china (could happen in some instances I’m sure, lol) will be far more impactful than an official statement from the PRC
I’m not sure people who want to shit on China will trust a
gov.cnwebsite, regardless of the contentI don’t expect them to. Even if I provided a link from whatever their approved list of sources happens to be I doubt I’d get real engagement anyway. It’s mostly for interested third parties.
Won’t believe anything that doesn’t shit on China.
I don’t know, I think it’s good to somewhat push people to confront their contradictions, and they won’t if they think the claim cannot be trusted. If the claim is made by some lib source they trust though? At least they would have to confront the facts and couldn’t dismiss them outright.
That is if they’re discussing (or just reading) in good faith
I think it’s important in public spaces especially, where the person you’re discussing with is not the only one reading the messages & people of varying political stances are around. In that context, a NYT article that is pro-china (could happen in some instances I’m sure, lol) will be far more impactful than an official statement from the PRC
They downvote legacy *media in these spaces quite frequently; more often than not.