DU should consider revising or splitting up LBN now that Bluesky is taking off.
Last edited Mon Mar 17, 2025, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)
I just finished making a post at LBN. It violates the rules there, in that it is based on a Bluesky skeet rather than a story from a major news source.
That's getting to be a problem. The Project 2025-related litigation is piling up, with no end in sight. Just Security's online litigation tracker gets updated several times every day.
No print or broadcast source can keep up with the minute-by-minute changes. Bluesky does so with the greatest of ease.
I suggest that DU set up a Litigation Forum, where such posts would be better placed than in LBN. As things stand, the forum would be mostly about Project 2025, but other legal issues could end up there too -- mandatory Bible reading in public schools, for example.
While I'm at it, a lot of the stuff in LBN lately is ... questionable. I've seen articles that were well past their pull date. Just because the Guardian notices a story that was widely reported on elsewhere earlier or a story is updated two weeks after it first appeared to correct the year in which the subject of the story converted to Catholicism (yes, I have seen this in LBN) does not make the story late breaking news all over again. Other articles are just plain junk. "Trump tweets this." "Trump tweets that." But those are separate issues.
Bluesky is filling up with some serious legal types who have just enough time to put up a skeet with valuable, timely information. That information should get its own forum, where it won't get lost.
Thank you.
= new reply since forum marked as read
