World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
What's the use of that information? They have that problem now.
It appears to be an internationally occurring problem.
No, I mean they have never had a problem limiting Nazi speech before.
Quite contrary, we have a big problem censoring Nazi speech.
We have some very specific rules when something can be censored and when it can't - and the far right has quite some training in "just not saying that, maybe only implicating it a little".
So any legal action outlawing then needs to rest on really solid legal basis or it will fail. Such a failure would be the propaganda the right wishes for.
Consequently they are always just shy of openly saying things but implying them. Like having election posters where their politicians can say "No we're not showing a Hitler salute in that image, we were just miming a roof of a house over a bunch of kids"
Sometimes a single politician gets caught with doing something too far, but then (of course) the whole party acts like they are shocked.
Getting rid of this shit is not easy, unfortunately. We can't censor what we don't like willy nilly.
Getting rid of a platform who's owner is trying to influence your elections even though he isn't even a citizen is not "willy nilly" by any means.
I personally absolutely agree of getting rid of that shit. I just said there are big hurdles, and you need to do so in a very organized and based on proof way.
You can't just outlaw them because you don't like them, that doesn't work. Germany having laws against hate speech doesn't mean there's not also a law about freedom of expression in the Grundgesetz.
You need to prove them to be against democracy in a watertight way. That's what I mean with not willy-nilly.
Or as I read it once: Democracy implicitly protects its enemies.
I'd like to just clarify a point which I think @froh42@lemmy.world is making as well.
My concern about censorship is not based on "fairness" or being sympathetic to voices I disagree with. I'm strictly speaking about effectiveness.
Creating rules about what ideas aren't allowed to be expressed has a particular set of strengths and weaknesses that have to be understood in order for this tool to be used effectively.
The strength is that it can slow dissemination of dangerous ideas. Restrictions on certain types of speech can be very effective for that. The weakness is that it cannot eliminate the infectiousness of an idea. Additionaly: suppressed ideas which have appeal may spread widely without opponents knowing about it, and opponents of these ideas may not develop counter-messaging that diminishes the appeals of these ideas. Lastly, restrictions on speech can create an evolutionary pressure on words and ideas to specifically find the weaknesses in the restrictions. A ban on saying certain words inherently creates a list of things you can say instead.
Taken altogether, prohibitions on speech or ideas are a lot like antibiotics. They're very powerful and effective, but they lose their efficacy with use. And overusing them can actually lead to a complete breakdown in their efficacy. So they must be used in concert with a wide array of ecosystem health measures to limit their need.
You might say 'Why worry? They've worked so far.' But if you do, that over reliance can lead to a catastrophic failure.