Overall I think this is my best source. They only reported actual facts and kept opinions out but still talked about the conspiracies but more importantly, why they started.

See this is an actual good quote. It isn't from a random internet sluth bored at home, but an actual royal spokesperson explaining things from their perspective.

Great fact to add. Seems like they are actually just reporting the facts.

This was a big part of the conspiracies.

Well of course if she was undergoing abdomen surgery I wouldn't want to be awake either. Weird thing to site.

Yes I am glad this was pointed out. When King Charles was sick he was still photographed all the time in public but Kate was not. I think that is what sparked the she was killed or kidnapped rumors.

Gossipy is a strong word choice. Could be pushing a narrative of people are too bored and nosey.

This wording was used in another article... weird choice and I do not know what it means.

Using old photos could be confusing for those who do not read the dates.

From what I know about Forbes is that they are a legitimate news source? Interested to see how this play out.

After a little more research, this article is not under the opinions page, which is just interesting to note based on the tones and wording used.

Again with these random quotes. This quote does not make me any more convinced because they asked a random Oklahoma lady.

Have not heard this yet. I think this article has some different information that the others.

These are some new theories not mentioned in the other articles.

A lot of big words used already two paragraphs in. I think they are trying to establish some kind of legitimacy?

What on Earth is this opening line.

For a gossip site they do show a lot of evidence as to why they think what they think. Somewhat convincing.

The palace is a great source of evidence here.

No one ever mentioned that the palace said she would be out until Easter or else I think a lot of people would not have believed the conspiracies.

Most people know cosmo is not a "news" source in a sense, more just a gossip site, kind of like a better TMZ. But for those who don't know, this line could be misleading.

I know my topic is before people found out she has cancer and the truth, but this article looks back at the conspiracies which I think could be interesting.

I'm more than halfway thought this article and this is the first mention of William. The title of the article is about what he says and thinks about all of this. Should have come up sooner.

This is the only article to say what actually happened and not in an accusatory tone. I was curious if the news sites just took it down because there was speculation so I am glad they cleared this up.

I get what Kate was trying to do but it does not take an expert to notice bad photoshop. Plus not putting her husband in the picture was a bad choice because it made more rumors.

I do like that this article is starting with the facts in the beginning and then listing the rumors.

A lot of the other article says jan 17th...

The journalist is saying we do these things and make up these elaborate stories because we are bored. Another factor of a conspiracy theory.

Making light of the situation and stating that these are not facts at all which is good because there are stupid people on the internet that would actually believe this.

Playing into the conspiracies by using the word ominous.

They are pointing out exactly what makes a conspiracy theory. I like that.

Niche audience, but this is exactly who reads Vogue though. They understand their audience. Also, makes it kinda known its an opinion piece right off the bat. Respectable.

The wording of this whole article seems harsh and like they want to prove a point...

This is one of the only article to say this. This is why the rumors started. Also, the royal family has updated the public every second of everyone else's health issues in the family, so I will admit since there were no updates that I believed in a conspiracy or two as well.

I remember people being way more suspicious after this video because she looked so different than before.

The whole article this Intelligencer magazine is so mean and critical of The Sun. Wonder what the relation is there.

Again a grasp for straws. I don't even see this one.

Bloom in March is such a grasp for straws because they clearly did not have ten things but wanted an article. Makes people look at the image and say "oh they are right" when it literally means nothing.

Why did they chose this man to quote? Anyone could look at the picture and say that. Also, why a professor of computer sciences? Why one at Cal Berkeley? Just a weird quote.

Yanking being the wording here is very harsh, making the news outlets that published the photos seem embarrassed or like they are covering something up.

Well not exactly... according to the post from Kate shown in the article, she did not clearly say this was photoshoped. She said she does experiment with editing sometimes but just says happy mother's day. Bad wording.

This should be details about the shooting, not the victims friends because it is the lead line.

Elliot Grainge is recently popular, so adding his name in the article is also motive.

Prominence and timeliness play into this article being popular.

This article seems to mention Justin Bieber as much if not more than Chris King.

The article uses bigger and more popular names to grab the reader's attention. I personally have not heard of Chris King but a headline with people like Justin Bieber is what grabbed my attention.

This website is reputable, but only from doing further research. These polls seem to be updated frequently, but it is unclear how.

There is no margin of error percent or how they conducted the research stated. Yes, they provide the skewer but that is too subjective.

Based on 655 polls is not sufficient enough evidence to say who is in the lead or not as of now. It does not fully state it is a prediction or "as of now" poll, so it could be misleading. Also, how many people are for each polling site? Or is this just 655 people? Too unclear.

This is always the start of the conspiracies because we always have a need to know everything all the time. So when we don’t, we make up things to make it make sense.

This reminds me of the photoshopped picture of princess kate because they released that photo so people would stop with the conspiracies.

I do not think all conspiracies are nefarious. Sometimes conspiracies are the only way we make the government reveal the truth.

Just a ton of metaphors and conclusions in this article.

Revive in this context means to make the play more interesting, not bring back to life.

Not physically carry, just list a third quarterback on the roster. Another metaphor.

The NFL has always used the term "winning" for challenges. It is not an actual fight to win, just if you think a call was wrong and the referees ended up agreeing with you.

A "play" cannot die. Metaphor for life.

Metaphor for people.

Assumption.

Metaphor for a person is a container

Story highlights prominence because the war between Gaza and Israel is in the news a lot.

This quote was meant to pray on our emotions.

There was not a lot of opinion in this article besides the quotes from Bell and the rumors about Dan Schneider. This is a sensitive subject, so it was probably for the best to stick to the facts.

Drake Bell going back to rehab after the show and interview is not known and this reporter somehow got an inside look at this before other news sites. Props to her.

These shows are constantly being broadcasted and exchanged from streaming service to streaming service. I would agree these shows should not be shown when this is under investigation.

There was a lot of quoting in this article, it made me know the facts which was nice, but it felt choppy at some points. I feel like we did not need the whole quote from Nickelodeon.

Dan claimed he did not do these, so spreading this can be considered rumor or speculation. Yes we all think or know it was him but we have to let the court prove that.

Did the MAF has a PR person help them write this article? They are mentioned a lot and in a positive way.

Just a quote from twitter. They did not even say who it was. It was important to mention though because one thought I had while reading was if the concertgoers liked that she did this or not.

This article is full of references to her music or public life, which the common person who does not follow her would not know. Interesting choice of wording and showing who their audience is.

There was no physical invitation, they were just available upon entry.

Entertainment Weekly, according to Wikipedia, is owned by Dotdash Meredith, which is then owned by the New York Times, they do a good job hiding this so you don't know the exact funding and sourcing.

Recent news in relation to someone famous, also important for the date to be noticed because of the overturn of Roe v Wade recently and the fight for reproductive rights.

Olivia did not hand these out herself like the article says. People on her staff handed them out.

I guess Europe is a good place to test this out. I think they are not as dependant on social media as Americans are, so Meta can really get a feel for if this is successful or not. Because if the people who are indifferent about social media want to buy it, you know the addicted Americans will.

This article is very dystopian and negative. I like it. The other articles are trying to justify the need for payment but this one is blunt about the facts. It is refreshing and important when writing a blog I think.

I use social media as a way to relax in a sense. If i have to pay for it, I will look at it like a chore like I do a gym membership. It would be a thought of "well I am paying for it I have to go on it to get my money's worth" therefore ruining the whole concept of social media for me.

Kinda going off of the quote above, is a partial reason for this because kids do not have debit or credit cards to pay, therefore they cannot go on social media? I think the government has been rying to get kids off of social media for a while because of cyberbullying and the need people feel to be perfect, so this could prevent them from accessing it.

Exactly. Normal people will not be able to afford social media which goes along with free speech... just a thought

Data privacy for the customers?? I think giving your credit card information to pay for the app is a lot more of a security threat to the customer than they are thinking.

This is a much better price. People are much more likely to say "eh its just 5 bucks" than if it were $10. However, there are way less ads on TikTok than Instagram, so I would not pay at all. It just would not be worth it to me.

I was going to bring this up if the article did not. When Twitter started charging people were so upset and even deleted the app or refused to use it. Can't Meta learn from the mistakes of X?? It caused a huge downfall for the company so why would Meta think this is a good idea? The company is already thriving enough.

This is way too expensive. I am pretty sure you can get Spotify or even a streaming service like Hulu for cheaper than this. I hate getting ads on these apps, but I would never pay $10 a month for something that is just inconvenient. However, if it was just a dollar or two, I might be more inclined.

This is very true. Most brands do not even talk about their company anymore when there is information I would actually want to know.

Whenever I go on threads, the companies I follow on Instagram post the exact same thing they post on Twitter or Instagram, so it feels pointless.

I hate the wording of "unhinged" and "unprofessional" when talking about the new social media trends. It is a trend, it wont last. It appeals to people at the time and that does not make it unprofessional, in fact it has probably increased it's revenues.

This is a super important statement. Many people think an ad is supposed to work right away but most of the time companies like restaurants are not immediate because a person may not have the ability to go get food or even be hungry. But with the company being humorous and memorable then they will think about that food place later when they want to eat.

I love that this site has the numbers and did the research. The numbers are showing that brands having humor in their posts is working.

I can totally believe this. I too choose a funnier company over a boring one. I also liked the comment about after COVID people are just looking for humor in everything.

This does not surprise me. I think my generation takes things a lot less seriously and we see companies and brands as way more personable than my grandparents do. Because we laugh at their tweet or like their video, we as a younger generation are way more inclined to give money to that brand if we laugh at their content.

Wendy is the most notable example of being "ruthless" or funny on social media. They were really the first to take this approach and I personally loved it.

The majority of people who have TikTok are younger, ranging from 10-20 years old. They have to have marketing campaigns that are geared towards younger generations because they are the ones that use the app.

I personally think the government should already know about AI and should not have people informing them who are in positions of power like this and will be this heavily affected by the position. I can see where they would know the most to teach congress about artificial intelligence, but it seems bias.

I had to read this book in high school for an English course and at the time I hated it because I did not understand it. Now, living in a world with artificial intelligence which makes life seem more like a simulation to me, I can understand the book. The book had a very dystopian view and I hated that, but now I think I am leaning towards the same views.

I remember when this first came out. I was shocked something like this was allowed honestly. I remember being so against it and I did not think it worked right but I see now I am wrong. I would never trust it to write a whole paper or on anything related to school actually, but I like to use it when I need to learn about something quick.

This is relieving to hear. It can sometimes feel like people in power do not know their limits on creation. They want to make a product people love, but will do it at all costs, meaning cookies and other privacy data points.

Safety is a big issue regarding artificial intelligence and its boundaries. It is important that we talk about these regulations and who can access what, as he mentions here. If the wrong people can get ahold of artificial intelligence robots or other devices then the world can be in danger.

This part was worded well. I think it is very rare that these voices meet in person together, it is probably representatives meting with each other usually. I think people like Elon and Bill Gates and Zuckerberg are in control of the biggest communication platforms, so if anyone were to control rules on AI, they are the people to do it.

While I cannot say I agree with the socialist ideology governing the rules, I think it says a lot that China even has rules on artificial intelligence before we seriously do. I think this is a step in the right direct just meeting with congress.

This is unbelievable and just shows that the tech giants really have a hold on the government. They continue to talk about politics and how social media could have influenced that and I am not surprised. I see untrue, or leaked things all the time on my social medias, so you can tell there is no privacy rules.

I love the wording of "industry arms race" here. When an arms race is talked about, most people think of the Cold War and deadly weapons. Once you think about it, most countries truly are competing to see who can make the most elaborate and functioning AI first. Also, is artificial intelligence harmful like the weapons in the original arms race? I think there is a chance it could be in the future if they are not stopped.