so if you haven't come across it, see here , here , here and here .
in short, one side says sources are pro-imperialist, the other side believes they're legitimate sources. then there is one user thinking we have been targeted by troll farms, one accusing others of being conspiracy theorists and stuff like that. it's one of the most unproductive arguements I've seen on Lemmy, something that looks like one those downvoted-to-oblivian threads on reddit. it's just a mess.
I think we can do a few things to prevent such pointless fights in the future:
- my favoriate response would be creating a community of fact-checker Lemmurs. it'll function similar to a wikipedia talk page, anyone can request a trial for an article shared on c/worldnews , then they will present evidence and sources to challenge the article, while the other side attempts to do the same. personal attacks, accusing of being a troll, asking for a call on jitsi to debate face to face (like seriously?!?!) will be forbidden. both sides will debate untill they reach an agreement. trying to go off-topic, bad faith arguements etc will be forbidden as well.
each time we reach a conclusion, a positive or negative point will be assigned to news source and to the person who posted it. best contributers who show the least bias will get a point as well. overtime it will help us to see if a source is really good or not.
-
a much easier approch would be to let downvotes and upvotes decide the fate of each post. I understand that this is the whole point of lemmy and similar platforms, but right now we have the problem of each side using downvotes and upvotes like it's a battle. posts about internet censoreship and tiny pigs are being downvoted because the person who posts them trusts the Guardian and other news outlets.
-
we can limit the number of posts on c/worldnews to minimize the amount of personal attacks and arguements.
so what do you think? I personally think as more users come to lemmy, we'll be dealling with more diverse opinions, and people might just engage in behaviors that harms the platform and benefits no one. this will be a real problem considering that Lemmy leans far-left. in my opinion having a fact-checking community will be neccessary if we don't want fact-based communities turn into battlefields.
ps: am I going too far and overreacting? to be honest I don't know xD I just think there's no chance for productive political arguements if we can't agree on the facts, and i see no point in what's happening on c/worldnews right now.
I love how you take a jab at people with calling them alternative truthers, like others do not state facts and you are the arbiter of truth getting victimised. That speaks a bunch about you, honestly.
You called Grayzone propaganda, right, while defending CNN, BBC as established, reputed news media? https://lemmy.ml/post/67429
You want to know about Uyghur genocide? Try to debunk a single point in this long video and do come back for a debate here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yURIS7S9zg
You want to know about Israel-Palestine conflict? Use news sources with no economic conflict of interest.
my Palestinian friend chat
You want to have a conversation and not destroy Lemmy?
Come back for the Uyghur genocide and Israel-Palestine debates. Let me end your selective human rights concerns and doubts here, so that you never try to resurrect these topics until any new developments from non propagandist sources appear for them to become a talking point.
You can also debate with me human rights concerns about Middle East, Belarus, Libya, South Asia, Central and South American countries if you like, since you are so concerned about human rights from the imperialist news sources you like to read. Spoiler: you keep getting played and you like it to avoid boredom
Edit: our awesome fellow instantly downvoted me, LOL
screenshot
Can you remove all the insults and stick to facts? You don't display a very deescalative language. Just throwing in some random youtube link proves nothing. BBC is established and certainly not the complete mouthpiece you claim it to be. There's a difference between biased western media and western propaganda outlets. It's not like the BBC is just a random asshat's blog...
If you claim that a 1.5 hour video with 20+ sources is a random YouTube link, then it may be the case that you are the problem. Sorry mate, BBC is UK government propaganda outlet and that is facts. BBC is somewhat Queen Elizabeth and the Royal Family's blog, as far as political news goes.
BBC does have bias, but that does not mean they make up Uyghur genocide and the cultural dissemination of the Uyghur people.
There does not exist Uyghur genocide. BBC and Western media biases have already gotten to you.
Uyghurs if were genocided, would not see an increase in population, 25 million of them, and them being privileged to be allowed to give birth to more than one child, something the 91% Hans in all of mainland China do not get to do.
Explain me this, if you believe in Uyghur genocide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBthA9OHpFo
China discourages Uyghur people to have any babies at all, while owing to shrinking population now encourages Han Chinese to have more babies: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs#Population https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/detainees-11232019223242.html
https://doi.org/10.1162%2Fisec_a_00368
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/chinese-oppression-of-the-uighurs-like-cultural-genocide-a-1298171.html
You need to be seriously joking to post Wikipedia and Radio Free Asia links in a legitimate discussion about Uyghur genocide.
This is like posting ISIS propaganda to justify terrorism. I am not debating this with you.