News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Lol now we're going to debate and call people out over their post syntax and use of italics? Is this what belongs on Lemmy? I guess it's funny content in a way...
To begrudgingly answer your question, no I do not usually notice people italicizing titles in casual news aggregator comments. I do however notice it done in professional journalism. Neither of the cases trigger me either way.
Professional journalism? You mean the thing that's usually paid for with advertising?
Ok man. I get it. Anything that costs money is bad. Let's never speak the name of any for profit company or business as it may give them free advertising. Thank you for keeping us all safe.
Why do you think this is about safety and not just wanting there to be one space on the internet where people aren't shilling for corporations?
It was a joke, mate.
I briefly looked through user tal's comment history, and found that they also italicized Google as a source of info in another comment. Does this mean they're also shilling for Google? Imagine how pissed Kagi would be if they found out...
Maybe people shouldn't promote either corporation this way? Or is that beyond the real of possibility and we should just accept that corporations will use people like this with quiet dignity?
Back to my original comment, I just don't see how it was intended as a promotion. It was supportive to the comment to add context to the information contained thereof. It was literally one word in a long comment. No hyperlink. On top of that, most people don't even know what Kagi is and there was no discernable effort to introduce or promote it.
What about that makes you so sure that they're being used by a corporation? Should they have just listed the source as "internet search engine"?
If they "shill" for a not for profit search engine will you call that out as well?
Because... they are? Free advertising is free advertising even if that isn't the intent. Just like everyone who 'googles' something is being used by Google as free advertising.
Of course not. Did you entirely miss my point about this being about capitalism or are you ignoring it in order to argue?
So by your logic, if I post information I found on Wikipedia and list it as a source, cool. But if I find information on Yahoo and list that as the source, then I'm shilling for capitalism and must be called out?
So yes, you are deliberately ignoring that despite me literally saying:
Sorry, the alternate Flying Squid who you pretend exists isn't here.
I'm not ignoring it. It just seems disingenuous. To me, it comes off as, "hide the source if it comes from an entity that makes money, because someone may be accidentally advertised to. Reduce context in order to avoid supporting a profitable entity. Professianal journalism is bad because the journalists get paid via subscriptions or ads. Fuck them for wanting a career in journalism."
I hate ads as much as the next guy but realistically, how are they going to support themselves. Should I not post The Guardian articles (hope I'm not shilling here) since they make money to pay their journalists?
Yes, I think we do have to accept that mentioning a company's name can have the effect of keeping them in the public consciousness, but so long as they exist and provide services that we interact with, we are going to need to refer to them somehow.
I agree that actual shilling is bad, and is something I do not want to see here, but I just don't understand or agree on your criteria for shilling apparently. At best, it could have possibly been shilling. But then by that same logic, it would apply to such an enormously broad range of conversation. Now we're just walking talking shilling machines.
And then you want to call it out every single time? With no reasonable proof that they were intentionally shilling? I just think that's going too far.
You:
Me:
You:
You literally asked me if I would do that. I explained very clearly to you that I would not, and you did not accept my answer.
You are not talking to me in good faith.
Lol likewise.
I am talking to you in the best of faith I can have with someone that seems like they're harassing people that in my opinion are just here providing good content. It seems ridiculous. I wanted to make my opinion known. I have no agenda I'm trying to push. I don't work for kagi or google, or any other company that would benefit from something like this.
If this is going to devolve into a deposition on whether I'm talking to you in good faith or not, then I think we're done. I'll be on the lookout for any possible shilling.
No, you're talking at me. Because if you were talking to me, you would accept more than only the yes answer to a yes or no question. But you only accept yes.
Ok cool. Apparently nobody likes being called out, do they. Welp, I accept your answer, and since you act in such good faith, I won't be surprised to see a disclaimer from you on any post or comment that contains the name of a for profit company here on Lemmy because it's likely shilling. They will feel your wrath!
What nobody likes is being called a liar because they answer no to your yes or no question.