Why not edit the title to be a little bit less clickbait?
Maybe something like:
Mark Kelly, A Possible Democratic Veep Pick, Just Changed His Position On Protecting the Right to Organize Act
Then someone would complain that I changed the title, which is against the rules. There’s a picture of him, and the summary has his name.
Just a note that Rule 1 in the sidebar says “if your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive”, so changing it is ok as long as it improves the information as the OP suggested. We’re luckily not constrained by the terrible titles chosen by news sites to boost clicks.
And then the actual title of the article will be changed 2 hrs later by the actual news agency.
It’s more targeted at the lemming who posted this. Considering people can edit post titles and add additional text to a link post there’s not really a risk in trying something more informative. They wouldn’t need to delete their post or match some ultra rigid formatting.
I don’t have any faith in Huffington Post (or several other news outlets) deviating from clickbait. In this situation someone might not recognize the name or act and assume it’s irrelevant to them. I can see why they do it but I don’t like it.
The Lemmy software let’s you do that, but some communities require that you use the original headline.
I’m not sure a change in public position in order to get a big promotion is really going to give the unions the warm fuzzies. It’s better than not changing, but it sure feels like a “yeah sure, whatever” response rather than a newfound love of organized labor.
“Unions loom large in our life, and I’m supportive of the PRO Act,” Kelly said, recounting how when his mother, a police officer, was injured, her union helped her recover.
Good that his mother was helped to recover, but police unions are not generally considered part of organized labor.
A big sign it’s him or he really wants it to be him.
I think that settles that he’ll be the VP pick for Harris.
Gross, this guy was anti-union too?
He was not anti-union per the article. He had some critiques of the bill previously.
some anti-union critiques. Didnt want independent contractors to be allowed collective bargaining rights.
“I do have some concerns with the legislation, specifically things about who qualifies as an independent contractor. Sometimes employers often use that to their advantage. In other cases, I do think people should be able to be independent contractors.”
From the previous article that is referenced. He is not against independent contractors having bargaining rights, but he thinks there should be rules around who qualifies. I don’t necessarily agree with him but I don’t think that he should be considered anti-union for that.
I dont think it’s always that cut and dry. These acts have so many individual parts and shit snuck in them. While there can be a lot of good, there’s also things that can be better or are frankly down right shit. So just becuase you vote no on something doesn’t mean you don’t want it - you could want it better.
Besides the above, all true, the Democratic Party is not a cult. Various opinions can exist at the same time.
you’re right, it’s not a cult, and I dont have to support harmful positions just because a democrat holds them.
