_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
1281 points (92.3% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
9682 readers
484 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out:
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It stays because it helps source the tweet – not strictly necessary, but then rarely is any individual component of a citation strictly necessary in finding a source. Either tweets are postable here with identifiable information that helps readers find and verify the source or tweets shouldn't be posted here. I'd argue the former (if "primary source" posts to e.g. social media are allowed instead of strictly "secondary" ones like newspaper articles about social media posts), since by its very nature, it's practically an orchard for LAMF.
Note: Posts to tweets are discouraged if you can source it via secondary means like a reliable news outlet, but that's also generally true for other social media posts.
It says x.com twice in the screenshot. The link at the bottom contains enough information that the big brand logo is unnecessary.
Yes, it does.
I could find out this is from x.com by searching its text, by searching its user handle, by seeing the 'x.com' at the bottom, by recognizing the UI, by knowing about the "Readers add context" functionality, etc.
If we're cool with discussing the contents of a neo-Nazi website, then we're cool with directly attributing the neo-Nazi website as the source of those contents.