I love how people keep clinging to the idea that it still could be a spy balloon in face of all logic.
Nobody said anything about misleading people. If people disagree with the framing then they can add their view and have a discussion about it in the thread. That's literally the point of having a forum is it not?
I grew up in USSR and I like communism. In fact, here's what lots other people who lived in USSR have to say
The only people who say what you say are those who benefited from all the exploitation after the USSR collapsed. The kind of people who say I got mine and fuck everyone else.
I wonder if restricting API access might be related to the explosion of GPT where ML companies need training data and they've been sucking it up from everywhere they can. Reddit and Twitter realized that they could charge these companies for access instead and hence all of a sudden API access costs money.
The context for the discussion is US admitting that the balloon did not collect information. 🤡
Perhaps that's the leading theory on 4chan or wherever you get your news from, but none of the mainstream western media suggests anything of the sort. In fact, the latest western theory is actually that Ukraine did it:
Thanks for letting me know that there is no point continuing this discussion since I'm talking to a conspiracy theorist as opposed to a rational and informed person.
Right, Russia just keeps blowing up their own pipelines dams and nuclear power plants. Imagine being a grown ass adult and actually believing that. When nord stream was blown up all the imbeciles in the west screeched that it was Russia who did it. Now slowly admissions are coming out that it wasn't Russia. Yet, here we are again each time a piece of infrastructure Russia controls, people inexplicably think that Russia destroyed it.
In the opinion of any sane person, and what IAEA says is that there is no substance to the conspiracy theory being peddled here.
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.
😂