Frank Carillo was charged on Friday in federal court in Virginia with threatening the vice-president after posting a series of messages targeting Harris on the social media site GETTR, according to court records.

A Virginia man was charged with making violent online threats against U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris days after she began her U.S. presidential campaign.

Frank Carillo was charged on Friday in federal court in Virginia with threatening the vice-president after posting a series of messages targeting Harris on the social media site GETTR, according to court records.

“Kamala Harris needs to be put on fire alive I will do it personally if no one else does," read one post cited in court documents. Another said Harris is “going to regret ever trying to become president.”

The messages were posted on July 27, six days after President Joe Biden announced he would not run for re-election and endorsed Harris to take his place as the Democratic candidate.

    • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
      3210·
      4 months ago

      Don’t upvote this thing until it’s reporting correctly in a manner consistent with the actual historical bias of the publication and any relevant facts. Right now it seems to be an LLM that is “summarizing”; which LLMs cannot do as they are essentially very convoluted predictive text. This is essentially an advertisement for Ground News. A third party that is affecting the Overton Window. Who gains from a single source of truth in the media? It’s not the reader I am certain of that.

      • subignition@fedia.io
        11·
        4 months ago

        (Haven’t used Ground News but have seen some adverts for it)

        I like the concept Ground News claims to be going for, which is just listing all the different media outlets reporting on a story so that the reader can do what they will with the additional context. I’m not as OK with media bias fact check, and if Ground News is trying to integrate it in some way on their service, I don’t think that’s good either. the whole point of Ground News seemed to me to be trying to explicitly NOT tell the reader what to think about a given article, and MBFC would undermine that IMO

        • person420@lemmynsfw.com
          2·
          4 months ago

          Ground News’s whole thing is they rate sources on a far right to far left scale and use that to compare stories. I tried it (the free version) and found it to be at best a news aggregator that gives you their opinion of media bias. In theory it sounded great, in practice I didn’t find a whole lot of value in it.

          • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
            133·
            4 months ago

            Is it itself biased?

            It has a bias towards American Centrism and that seems to make left of center folks in other parts of the world very angry.

          • subignition@fedia.io
            41·
            4 months ago

            It has the possibility to be like anything else, I cannot say whether it is or not. but it’s more that I would prefer to move in a direction towards people thinking more critically about the news they consume, and MBFC is offering to shortcut that process, which I don’t like

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        115·
        4 months ago

        Right now it seems to be an LLM that is “summarizing”

        That isn’t at all how MBFC works. Their methodology is clearly explained right here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

        If you’d like to know who rated CTV and when it was last done you can find that information here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ctv-news/

        Honestly I’m really beginning to believe that the people bitching about MBFC (and Ground News too) aren’t upset by some notion of a “single source of truth” but rather because their lies are being exposed.

      • tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works
        72·
        4 months ago

        Wait, I’m not sure I understand correctly… How is a CTV News article credited to Reuters an advertisement for Ground News?