Repercussions from the US tariff war.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgyz1ejw9noOpen linkView original on sh.itjust.worksSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on sh.itjust.works
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgyz1ejw9noOpen linkView original on sh.itjust.works
10 replies
The title of this post is not reflected in the article; neither the term "repercussions" nor "tariff war" are found in it.
The article's title is
Yes this is clickbait and misleading title. Use original title OP.
Forgive me, I'm new here (and I'm not OP). But I thought the title was actually valid comment, and basically was at least in part what the BBC title was saying but not in so many words.
I know some groups in "the other place" (which I'm weaning myself off slowly) have a rule that titles have to be the same as that used in the article, but I've checked the rules here and that doesn't seem to be one.
Hi and welcome here. You mean new in Fediverse, Lemmy or this community? Hope you enjoy it here.
Well indeed the rule isn't specifically stated, but using the correct title makes not only sense ( rule 1 -3) but is the proper format imo. If I click on an OP title to find out it's something else, it's misleading and I'm wasting my time.
Comments and opinions can be important and valid, they can be made under content like a note or under the comments section. That's how most do it.
Thanks! New to Lemmy, been on Mastodon for quite a while though.
Yw! Hope it's to your liking. Should be enough communities for your tastes. And, it's always possible to start a new one for the bold and brave.
The only connection to the US tariffwar - afaics - is this: "This comes at a particularly trying geopolitical moment"
If it says anywhere in the article that a deal 2 decades in the making is even partly the result of "repercussion from the US tariff war", please point it out to me.
I don't see it in the rules either btw, but I found it confusing and worth pointing out.
Maybe the article has changed since it was posted, but its very heavily about how Trumps trade war is accelerating a deal that has stalled for 20 years:
There is more, but the last pargraph makes it clear that the OPs headline is correct in its framing:
It's in the headline, quote: India and EU set for 'mother of all deals' as Trump's tariff uncertainty looms
It seems to me that the title used is not unreasonable, on the grounds of the headline alone.
Makes sense for both of them.