A reminder to all DUers reposting content from social media: Check your sources

[EarlG]

Given the situation in the Middle East, it's understandable that people want to bring the most up-to-date information they can find to DU. In principle, I'm absolutely not opposed to that. In practice, however, it means that some of the content now being brought to DU is being reposted from sources which are not appropriate for our community.

I am talking about social media sources which traffic in right-wing content, racist content, homophobic content, antisemitic content, and conspiracy content, including anti-vax conspiracy theories. Or, more often than not, all of the above.

I will note that DU's "Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources" rule does carve out an exception for such sources:

Do not post right-wing talking points or smears. Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits. Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website.

Note that if you want to use a source which would typically be considered inappropriate for DU, you need to to give a clear reason for why you're doing it. If the purpose is to point out that MAGA media is turning against Trump, or if you want to highlight the awfulness of a particular X post by some right-wing public figure, then you need to give a clear explanation that that is your intent.

But simply reposting content from neo-Nazi or other extremist social media accounts, just because they've criticized Trump or other Republicans, or because they've posted an update about the war with Iran, does NOT count under the rule exception.

As you know, DU relies on the community to police itself via the Jury system. Of course, not all members serving on Juries are aware of whether certain X accounts are inappropriate, and people are often not likely to bother to check. This can make it easy for inappropriate sources to slip through. If Jury members see a post bashing Trump or Republicans, they are probably likely to think it's okay, and will be unlikely to click through to the X account only to find that it is selling white supremacist T-shirts.

So:

1) To DU members who are reposting content from social media: Please check your sources before posting to make sure that the source is appropriate for DU.

2) To DU members who are serving on Juries for the "Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources" rule: Please don't just assume that a social media source is okay if it is bashing Trump -- actually check the source to make sure that it is appropriate for DU. If you do not wish to click through to a social media site to check the source, it is perfectly okay to cancel out of the Jury and let someone else take a look.

Thanks for reading, and for being part of the effort to keep DU clear of bigoted sources and content.

[UpInArms]

1. Thanks for the clarification, EarlG

That was very helpful

[demmiblue]

2. Also, just stop posting content from the Nazi bar on DU.

Also, stop recommending /highlighting X content. That would be a good start (imo, of course).

[obamanut2012]

10. Yup, I would love no inks to Twitter at all

SCreencaps, okay, but no links.

[CaptainTruth]

12. I won't click on any links to X.

I imagine others here feel the same.

[demmiblue]

15. I put people who constantly post X content on ignore.

That seems to help quite a bit.

[hunter]

58. I do that too.

Overall I find media like the-site-formerly-known-as-twitter useless as news sources.

If some "Breaking News!!!" does not require my immediate action I can read about it later in my favorite newspapers after the dust has settled and there's a clearer view of the situation.

If some "Breaking News!!!" does require my immediate attention then someone will probably call me, bang on my door, or else I'll be in the midst of it.

Being among "the first to know" about situations we can't personally and immediately do anything about only aggravates feelings of helplessness.

Democratic Underground is my only "social media" and even this place can be too much at times.

[niyad]

20. Same here.

[leftstreet]

18. It's still the largest hub for news and commentary

It's where everyone finds mainstream and citizen news sources, breaking headlines, statements from elected politicians, etc

It's greatest selling point is Trump no longer posts there! He used to suck the oxygen out of the room, but now I think he just posts on his made-up Truth Social

[demmiblue]

26. I don't think that is true anymore, sans the extreme right-wing content.

I can find all of that on Bluesky. In fact, several of the accounts I follow are leaving/have left X.

This is exactly right. The Onion quietly left Twitter a month ago and... our weekly subscribers went up. It's because we're doing well here, on Instagram and on YouTube.

As a business, being on Twitter is somewhere between useless or detrimental, unless you're selling boner pills.

— Tim Onion (@bencollins.bsky.social) 2026-02-23T01:51:27.338Z

[leftstreet]

28. That's great there's another source n/t

[jmbar2]

37. It's also the best source for breaking financial and overseas news

Great posts this morning from a journalist that translates Russian news, Dave Troy, Anne Applebaum, Texas breaking election news, earthquake/tsunami alerts, Aaron Rupar, Ukrainian civilian posts, my two Senators' alerts, court verdicts, etc.

[ShazzieB]

61. Everyone???

"[X is] where everyone finds mainstream and citizen news sources, breaking headlines, statements from elected politicians, etc."

No, it is not where "everyone" goes to find this material. I understand that many got in the habit of using X for that back when it was still Twitter, but some of us never did, and others swore off using that platform after Eloon took over. To say that is where "everyone" gets news, etc., is simply not accurate.

[Nittersing]

3. Thanks Earl

I think "reliable news sources" is gonna get trickier and trickier.

My thanks to everyone for cross-checking!!

[murielm99]

4. I wish the Democracy Now! posts could be

excluded here. They are no better than Fox. There are other ways to post the news.

[jfz9580m]

34. That is a bit unfair

I went on DemocracyNow! just now and found this.

https://www.democracynow.org/2026/3/11/amy_littlefield_abortion_killers_roe_nation

I am careful posting from leftwing sites that do attack the Democratic party a lot (though sometimes those are the places where a lot of independent lefty thought persists away from electoral politics). They can be a little ossified in how they present content I largely agree with though (The Nation, DNow! etc).

But the left is one part electoral politics and there I agree that left wing sites can be impractical.

But on left wing thought separate from elections, I find newer lefty sites like Current Affairs very useful and less hidebound in examining reality than the msm.

[Kali]

55. disagree

some content is maybe not perfect for here but the in depth work on subjects/issues that get little to no coverage anywhere else is important.

[questionseverything]

57. I can not believe attacking democracy now is allowed here

[greatauntoftriplets]

5. Thanks, EarlG.

[PatSeg]

6. K&R

[MustLoveBeagles]

7. Thanks EarlG

[GusBob]

8. there has to be a "but"

and I will be a butthead, I apologize

I know you have addressed this before,,, but again,,, what about fake war news (aka propaganda) from liberal leaning sources?

It has been said "the first casualty of war is the truth" I think as a newsgroup, truth should be preserved

[niyad]

11. Do you have specific examples in mind?

[stopdiggin]

23. because of course it NEVER happens ...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The poster has a completely legitimate point.
However - for the purposes of this this thread it shall be noted that DU has specific rules against right wing sources and agenda - while the same is not true for simple misinformation and trash posting. And, in any case - it's kind of up to the community to some extent to ride herd ...

[niyad]

24. So asking for specific examples is denying the truth of the poster's

statement? Got it. Thanks. I wanted to see what I might have missed, since one cannot possibly keep up with everything out there.

[stopdiggin]

31. No. but it IS often a tactic used to nullify, diminish or dismiss ...

within back and forth discussion.
If I (or another poster) am not willing to go do 30 minutes of research finding 'examples' and 'exhibits' (to satisfy your demands for 'documentation' ) - then of course the point I make is construed to be illegitimate or without foundation. Screw that! I am not your dogsbody - or your research assistant! Find your own 'examples'! Meanwhile - my statement and opinion stands on its own merit. Just like yours!

Point being - like I said - often employed as a cheap tactic ...

[niyad]

39. I see. So showing where **I** have made such posts would be something

you could not possibly be expected to take the time to do, despite having accused me of such, at least by implication. Duly noted. remdi95.

[W_HAMILTON]

44. If it both takes you that long to find one example and is not worth your time to do so...

...one could deduce that it is neither rampant nor serious enough to worry about.

[niyad]

25. So asking for specific examples is denying the truth of the poster's

statement? Got it. Thanks. I wanted to see what I might have missed, since one cannot possibly keep up with everything out there.

[GusBob]

40. Yes I do

From this week actually, I dont wanna "call out" a poster, thats not my vibe. The inaccuracies were pointed about by diligent DUers in the meat of the thread, but nobody seems to read thru the posts like we do.

I am uncertain, in general, if some of the war reporting is accurate from either side. Perhaps you would agree that one must be circumspect in anything one reads online, anywhere. Back in the heady days of DU verification was requested for claims "Got a link for that?" Remember ? Now with click bait stuff, the very links can be bogus

EarlG has address this topic and I am dead-horsing a pet peeve, I apologize

[niyad]

43. Not a problem. I simply wondered what I might have missed in the

necesary, endless onslaught of news and horror. For our sanity, we do have to take breaks occasionally.

[niyad]

9. Thank you, EarlG. Sadly, the list of trusted, reliable, ethical sources

seems to get shorter by the day.

[orangecrush]

13. Roger that

[MiHale]

14. I never click on an X posting...

Interesting idea above that screen capture of the X post …

[womanofthehills]

47. Actually, on each X post, you can click on Grok symbol to check

If photo is real or if what is said has been reported by any reputable source. Very helpful.

My Rep, Melanie Stanbery (NM) is super active on X and so are many others who represent us. Also, on X, besides following Dems, I like to follow the Republicans who hate Trump and the Independents who hate Trump. Wow - Independents like popular Dave Smith & Clint Russell are really going after Trump and his war mongering. They have huge Independent followers. So now in the Republican Civil War - there is MTG, Tucker, Alex Jones, Massie, Rand Paul, Candace Owens etc. - Republicans against wars and Trump’s policies who most claim their lives have been threatened - one even said by Netanyahu himself and Candace said Turning Points told her it was supposed to be you when Charlie Kirk was killed. The Republicans seem to be into threatening each other big time.

[dickthegrouch]

16. Is there a list of inimical sites for us naive jurors?

I have some sites blocked by firewall rules and others rendered useless by local resolution to 127.0.0.1 so I’m not going there to check.
I think DU could institute a different colored square for posts that include a link to known rightwing sites.

[Kali]

56. I think he was talking about right wing sources ON some social media sites

it would be the actual source on x, for example, not just anything from x

[Alice Kramden]

17. KnR

Bookmarked

[BlueKota]

19. It is getting much harder to tell truth from lies.

I quit X when Muskrat took over. I still see a lot of posts, however, around various social media sites saying this politician humiliated this other politician on such and such a t.v. program or podcast. I reasoned, however, if there was no video or audio, of said interaction, it is most likely a fabrication. Most times it turns out neither of the named politicians were even guests on the shows, the nights these incidents were supposed to have taken place.

I also Google to see, if any other sources are listed that backup the claims. Also a lot of times I come here to see whether something has been proven true or false.

[True Dough]

30. "It is getting much harder to tell truth from lies."

This is definitely by design from the likes of Trump and Putin, who want the masses to believe that they are the only purveyors of truth when, in actuality, both are hateful, self-serving liars.

[BlueKota]

42. Agreed!

[EarlG]

32. To be clear, and this is also addressed to one of the posts above,

this is not about truth or lies or fact checking. That is a separate issue which I've addressed many times before. (In a nutshell, this is the Internet, and people should always be cautious about what they read and share, and the best way to counter factually incorrect information on DU is to do so publicly by responding to that information.)

In this case, however, I'm specifically talking about folks bringing content to DU from sources which are clearly inappropriate -- social media influencers who typically traffic in highly bigoted content, but from time to time happen to post something that DUers are in agreement with (for example, criticizing Trump), which then gets reposted on DU. Those influencers should not be platformed on DU.

[LiberalLovinLug]

60. A little confusing.

So if Candice Owens makes a video, on her podcast, criticizing Trump, which she has lately, we can't post that?
The reason for posting such content might be to show how Trump World is cracking, not to endorse her specifically.

Or we can write a statement with the post explaining our reason? And then post it?

[womanofthehills]

48. You can click on Grok symbol on every X post

To see if any reputable source posted info. and where photo is actually from. So many photos of explosions and many are just using generic explosion photos.

[SSJVegeta]

21. 💯 💯 💯 💯

"Dont believe everything you see on the internet."

-Abraham Lincoln

[Wounded Bear]

22. K&R Gets more important every day to maintain integrity...nt

[PunkinPi]

27. Thank you, EarlG!! nt

[Peacetrain]

29. Thank you... This is my favorite place to get the latest news stories from all over the net..

Always best to double check sources before posting, good advice and a good reminder ..

[sueh]

33. Thank you, EarlG.

[Marthe48]

35. Please use in an appropriate forum too

Please keep politics out of the Lounge. I don't alert on political posts in the Lounge, but I trash them.

Thank you.

[lindysalsagal]

36. I verify most posts these days. Lots of clickbait.

[2naSalit]

38. Thanks...

We needed that!

[FakeNoose]

41. Most DUers have no desire to provide extra clicks to the right-wing media

However it's the responsibility of the DU posters, not the DU readers, to make the determination.

I completely agree with this definition, and I will never click on a right-wing source if I can avoid it.

The only exception for me is that I will occasionally post a "screenshot" of another person's post that includes a live-linked tweet from Xwitter, if I believe it is of interest to other DUers. By creating a screenshot, I give one click to Xwitter, but once the screenshot is made I can post it on DU for others to see, and thus deny the extra clicks to Xwitter. This is far better than leaving the live tweet for everyone to click on. I hope other DUers will follow this and provide images as screenshots rather than as live-linked tweets.

[womanofthehills]

49. Problem I've had in past

A poster might not like what was said by a reputable source and mark it as coming from conservative media. I’ve had posts from Politico (left leaning) marked as conservative media and jury agreed???? Also, posts from Health & Human Services reported as kooky????? We have to make sure juries don’t judge just by their views on content to determine what’s a legitimate source.

[FakeNoose]

52. Always be sure the source is identified in your post

I do understand your point, and I try to identify the source within my post. If it should ever be alerted, the jury needs to see this and hopefully they will have a better understanding. (The link you provide in your post isn't normally provided to the jury.)

I've been on a lot of juries lately, and it seems more often the replies are alerted rather than the original post.

[LudwigPastorius]

45. This sounds like Twitter/X in general:

I am talking about social media sources which traffic in right-wing content, racist content, homophobic content, antisemitic content, and conspiracy content, including anti-vax conspiracy theories. Or, more often than not, all of the above.

[JudyM]

46. Great to see this. Some of the sites have really offensive content, not just political but dehumanizing.

[usonian]

50. Here's a new tidbit.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47354634

Hacker News marks all posts linking to 404Media as "auto-dead"

A real tribute to that site.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. When you say "that site", it would be useful to specify which of the 2 sites you mention you are talking about

My personal feeling is that Y Combinator, with its (historic?) links to Sequoia Capital, is the more dubious, while 404 Media, with an EFF Award, is the one to support. But perhaps you have different information on the two.

[pwb]

51. K

.

[Torchlight]

53. I'll stick with 'social media reposts are sloppy and lazy' and ignore them unless

a verification and a summary are provided.

It seems to work... more often than not, those with these qualifiers result in much more steadied and measured discussions, while those lacking it are often little more than a small pond filled with sealion chum and troll's bait.

[Skittles]

59. I see a lot of that from "the usual suspects"

yes indeed