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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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
“Progressives”/Liberals are straight up begging for authoritarian dictatorships.
I missed when calling for smaller government, less regulations, less red tape, untouchable free speech, and less censorship suddenly became “fascism”.
There’s that classic liberal attitude we all know and love.
Classic conservative attitude we all loathe
Cool made up things! Republicans are trying to ban you from saying gay people exist now? Source? Websites are being censored? Source?
Wikipedia is not a source.
No one is trying to deny gay people are a thing.
The sources in Wikipedia are
So provide those sources along with what part of them you’re actually talking about.
Which laws specifically?
You see them. They were provided to you.
I don't see them, because I don't go to wikipedia links and look for a needle in a haystack to support your argument.
You provide the links to the laws that you think support your argument.
my argument? Lol no. Also it's not a needle in a hay stack, everything is neatly listed at the bottom haha.
You're arguing that I should go and find my own examples of something that I am arguing isn't happening, rather than the person making the argument that it is providing actual examples. That's not how conversations and arguments work.
The original person, or yourself, can provide evidence to back up the original claim. It's not my job to go and guess what exact part of what link you're talking about.
You as in the person who is making the argument.
No, I'm not, I'm saying look at the sources provided to you
It's there, the entire wiki is about the subject
And I'm saying that Wikipedia is not a source, and that I'm not going to go to a wikipedia page and then look for the specific source(s) that the person thinks proves their point when there could be 50 different articles linked on that page.
Show me a source for a LAW that the current US government has passed making it illegal to say that gay people exist. Go.
The sources are there, gay erasure is happening. I can't learn it for you.
Show me a source. Wikipedia is not a source. Show me 1 specific example of a law that is "gay erasure" please. That's not too much to ask, surely?
Tell you what, go to that wiki, scroll down and take a gander at the part that says "reference" and let me know what you see? That's not too much to ask, surely?
Last chance then I'll correctly assume that there are no sources on there that support the "gay erasure" argument.
It won't be correct, plugging your ears, And closing your eyes isn't "correctly assuming"
If you can't provide a single piece of evidence to support your argument no matter how many times you're asked, it's correct to assume it doesn't exist. Bye now :)
If you can't be bothered to look at the evidence provided then, no its not correct to assume it doesn't exist lol.
Did you miss when Herr trump banned all those DEI websites? Like are you really that ignorant of what is going on?
Banned all those DEI websites? You mean removed policies from their government websites that no longer existed?
If the government end a government program, it’s not “censorship” to remove said program from government websites lol.
It is when it's targeted specifically to non straight white men. Lol you need to try harder at trolling
That's not "censorship". Nothing is being "censored". The goverment ended all DEI programs in their ranks, so they removed all DEI programs from their websites. Do you think they should keep advertising DEI programs that no longer exist?
What is it with Lemmy and accusing everyone who dares to have an opposing view of "trolling"? What exactly in my posts says "trolling"?
It literally is when it's targeting anyone but white men.
Oh, you actually believe this? Ouch, that's so much worse, sorry about that! I apologize. I'm against views that go against respecting others and I'm also against people who defend fascists, that is something I'm proud of.
Removing outdated information from a website is censorship because it "targets" anyone but white men? What? The DEI programs no longer exist, so the government removed the information about the DEI programs. That makes sense no matter how you feel about the DEI programs ending. If it doesn't exist, you remove the info about it.
Are you trying to argue that ending DEI programs is "censorship"? That's an entirely different argument, and "censorship" isn't even remotely the right word for it.
Believe that you're just saying I'm "trolling" because you disagree with me? Yes, I believe that because that's what you're doing. You haven't shown any evidence of me "trolling" because I'm not. We're having a discussion, or at least I'm trying to. It seems to me like you're trying to get my opinion and views censored by calling them "trolling", and I'm assuming you're also reporting my comments as such too right?
why?
I know, I apologized, this is so much more sad that you're serious
you don't know what censure is, and no I'm not reporting you.
Why.....what? Why would they remove the information about programs that no longer exist? Because they no longer exist. The information is no longer relevant, and leaving it up would only cause confusion.
CenSURE and cenSOR are very different things. Are you claming that the removal of the DEI stuff from the government websites is censuring or censoring?
Uhuh, but why?
Censors can censure.
Ok so there's no point for me trying to continue this discussion with you as you clearly aren't arguing in good faith. See ya.
Right back at ya
You're adorable.
PP was part of the Harper government which muzzled climate scientists, has made an enemy of the free press and implemented a racist snitch line to report religious minorities. Yeah, that's the kind of "free speech" Poilievre believes in, the kind that shut the fuck up and doesn't contradict the party line. So yeah, he's a fucking fascist and you are a fucking idiot to think he is anything but a fucking fascist.