I grew up in the 90s where everything we didn’t like was gay so I get it. Trump bad. Musk bad. Depict them as gay because it’s funny. It’s just weird to need that.
Also I was raised around a fucked up drunk so I also get the whole “these are homophobes, let’s make fun of them for being gay because they’ll react negatively even if i technically don’t care about homosexuality.” Just pushing buttons.
But where does it become obvious and to whom? It should be labeled.
Articles have been coming out with pictures that are more and more random, but there’s an even more recent trend to label them for what they are. We should all push for that
For example: article talking about F-16s for Ukraine with picture labeled “stock photo of B-2 from 2005”. It was obvious to me that it wasn’t an f-16 (and I wonder why it’s even there when it doesn’t add value), but let’s make it clear to anyone - clear that it’s lazy news, not fake news
But where does it become obvious and to whom? It should be labeled.
Dude… Nobody needs help understanding that a photo of Trump kissing Musk is a metaphor. And that’s the whole point: it’s designed to be obviously a metaphor. If you label it, it becomes fucking stupid. And if you need a label, clearly you need to get out of the rock you’ve been living under.
It’s not as if there haven’t been more ridiculous and realtrump related photos; I think there are 100% people who will spend time wondering if that photo is real or not, especially after this. If it were at the onion, I’d be in support of not labeling it, at a site that purports to present industry news, I think it should be labeled.
metaphore
Was that supposed to be some kind of metaphor? Only the fact that you did it twice makes me wonder if it was somehow intentional.
Untie that knot in your pants. Obvious doctored photos and illustrations for satirical purposes have been around forever.
It’s not fake news, it’s satire.
I grew up in the 90s where everything we didn’t like was gay so I get it. Trump bad. Musk bad. Depict them as gay because it’s funny. It’s just weird to need that.
Also I was raised around a fucked up drunk so I also get the whole “these are homophobes, let’s make fun of them for being gay because they’ll react negatively even if i technically don’t care about homosexuality.” Just pushing buttons.
You don’t understand the danger of the fire that youre playing with
But where does it become obvious and to whom? It should be labeled.
Articles have been coming out with pictures that are more and more random, but there’s an even more recent trend to label them for what they are. We should all push for that
For example: article talking about F-16s for Ukraine with picture labeled “stock photo of B-2 from 2005”. It was obvious to me that it wasn’t an f-16 (and I wonder why it’s even there when it doesn’t add value), but let’s make it clear to anyone - clear that it’s lazy news, not fake news
Dude… Nobody needs help understanding that a photo of Trump kissing Musk is a metaphor. And that’s the whole point: it’s designed to be obviously a metaphor. If you label it, it becomes fucking stupid. And if you need a label, clearly you need to get out of the rock you’ve been living under.
It’s not as if there haven’t been more ridiculous and real trump related photos; I think there are 100% people who will spend time wondering if that photo is real or not, especially after this. If it were at the onion, I’d be in support of not labeling it, at a site that purports to present industry news, I think it should be labeled.
Was that supposed to be some kind of metaphor? Only the fact that you did it twice makes me wonder if it was somehow intentional.