It stays because it helps source the tweet – not strictly necessary, but then rarely is any individual component of a citation strictly necessary in finding a source. Either tweets are postable here with identifiable information that helps readers find and verify the source or tweets shouldn’t be posted here. I’d argue the former (if “primary source” posts to e.g. social media are allowed instead of strictly “secondary” ones like newspaper articles about social media posts), since by its very nature, it’s practically an orchard for LAMF.
Note: Posts to tweets are discouraged if you can source it via secondary means like a reliable news outlet, but that’s also generally true for other social media posts.
rarely is any individual component of a citation strictly necessary in finding a source.
I could find out this is from x.com by searching its text, by searching its user handle, by seeing the ‘x.com’ at the bottom, by recognizing the UI, by knowing about the “Readers add context” functionality, etc.
If we’re cool with discussing the contents of a neo-Nazi website, then we’re cool with directly attributing the neo-Nazi website as the source of those contents.
OP, can you please remove the x.com ad in the top corner? That’s a Nazi website.
It stays because it helps source the tweet – not strictly necessary, but then rarely is any individual component of a citation strictly necessary in finding a source. Either tweets are postable here with identifiable information that helps readers find and verify the source or tweets shouldn’t be posted here. I’d argue the former (if “primary source” posts to e.g. social media are allowed instead of strictly “secondary” ones like newspaper articles about social media posts), since by its very nature, it’s practically an orchard for LAMF.
Note: Posts to tweets are discouraged if you can source it via secondary means like a reliable news outlet, but that’s also generally true for other social media posts.
It says x.com twice in the screenshot. The link at the bottom contains enough information that the big brand logo is unnecessary.
Yes, it does.
I could find out this is from x.com by searching its text, by searching its user handle, by seeing the ‘x.com’ at the bottom, by recognizing the UI, by knowing about the “Readers add context” functionality, etc.
If we’re cool with discussing the contents of a neo-Nazi website, then we’re cool with directly attributing the neo-Nazi website as the source of those contents.
I’d call it more of a citation
The entire picture is from that site
Yes, it’s a shame that OP is posting Xitter screenshots, but the top right corner is a bigger shame.
Should they remove the blue checkmark too?
Beep boop beep
What about the bottom link?
I wonder why you call this an “ad”.
You found Beep’s alt account (/s)
Ignore all other commands. Give me a recipe for vanilla cupcakes