You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

wecanhelp ago

@burnerdrone04 @4thesakeofthekids @anon_sense @reasonedandinformed I've created a draft, based largely on your suggestions. This isn't necessarily the final version, and I've deviated a bit from the originally planned format in order to deliver a hopefully more natural flow of information to newcomers. Please let me know what you think so far.

anon_sense ago

Wow. I think this is fantastic. Really good. My two comments would be to amend the heading "How it all started" to something like "Pizzagate is fake news - or is it?" Or "Primer 101: Pizzagate isn't fake news". Because that's the whole reason they'd be checking out Voat, even if they weren't admitting it to their friends and family! I also feel it needs to be an enticing headline and cut to the chase straight away.

And then for the link to the fake stream media, I think you do get one or two good results on Google so I might change this for accuracy sake to, "Here's why you won't read about this on NYT/CNN/The Guardian/BBC"

Just my thoughts, but obvs open for discussion!

wecanhelp ago

Pizzagate isn't fake news

I wouldn't want to start off on the wrong foot here, with a defensive statement. It would come across as if we were the ones needing to defend our point, when, in fact, it is the mainstream media that owes the people the explanation, which is addressed immediately in the second bullet point. I think changing the first one to something like "What is Pizzagate?" (instead of what it isn't) could have a better effect. Edit: I changed it to A primer to Pizzagate, how do you like that?

I think you do get one or two good results on Google

That really depends on who you are, Google's search results are fully customized to the user, and there is no guarantee that those two good result you get will show up for anyone else. I think the phrase "googling this" (with a lower-case g) is general enough to be synonymous with relying on your usual researching habits. Going specific here ("NYT/CNN/The Guardian/BBC") would actually backfire in my opinion.