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
BBC: Twitter's algorithm favours right-leaning politics, research finds
The Verge: Twitter’s research shows that its algorithm favors conservative views
Salon: Contrary to popular belief, Twitter's algorithm amplifies conservatives, not liberals: study
My guy with the receipts!
Twitter 1.0 outright banned right-leaning users. Silencing dissenting voices from online political discourse isn't considered "gaming the system"?
Does anyone remember when Twitter 1.0 censored stories about the Hunter Biden Laptop? On my book, that's manipulation.
The problem was when lefties were in charge of Twitter's moderation team. They were trigger-happy in banning anyone who didn’t agree with their self-proclaimed "social consensus." In this last U.S. election cycle, we found out this consensus was a lie. Examples:
User1: "I'm against illegal immigration. Deport the illegals now!"
Mod: "Racist!! You're permanently banned!"
User2: "We gotta have stricter laws for legal refugees. They don't respect our local customs and bring social issues (i.e., higher crime rates) that burden the taxpayer."
Mod: "Nazi!! You're permanently banned!"
User3: "I'm against hormonal therapies and sex-change surgeries on kids. We gotta have legislation that forbids it and makes doctors accountable."
Mod: "Transphobe!! You're permanently banned!"
They maliciously extrapolate dissenting opinions to paint them as something bad. People have the right to be dissatisfied with current policies and advocate for change. That shouldn't be a bannable offense.
You need to have imaginary conversations with yourself to try to pretend you're not full of shit. What a bozo.
I'm waiting for your counter-arguments. Or is ad hominem the only thing you know?
Scroll up, dipshit. The first reply of your comment had 3 sources exposing your shitheadedness
From The Verge article:
"Twitter says that it doesn’t know why the data suggests its algorithm favors right-leaning content, noting that it’s “a significantly more difficult question to answer as it is a product of the interactions between people and the platform.” However, it may not be a problem with Twitter’s algorithm specifically — Steve Rathje, a Ph.D. candidate who studies social media, published the results of his research that explains how divisive content about political outgroups is more likely to go viral.
The Verge reached out to Rathje to get his thoughts about Twitter’s findings. “In our study, we also were interested in what kind of content is amplified on social media and found a consistent trend: negative posts about political outgroups tend to receive much more engagement on Facebook and Twitter,” Rathje stated. “In other words, if a Democrat is negative about a Republican (or vice versa), this kind of content will usually receive more engagement.”
If we take Rathje’s research into account, this could mean that right-leaning posts on Twitter successfully spark more outrage, resulting in amplification."
In other words: it's not the algorithm that favors one side of the polical spectrum. It's just that right-wing users know how to make more engaging posts. And that is dispite being sabotaged by moderation policies that favors left-leaning views.
God damn sealions
I followed some pretty vocal british right leaning voices who seemed like more or less reasonable folk before they later ended up succumbing to Trump hysteria, and I can assure you they did not blanketly ban right wing users at all.
Of the prominent right-wing voices they did, I'm struggling to remember ones that didn't deserve it at some point for one reason or another.
I remember the Hunter Biden scandal being a hot mess to navigate not least of all because its biggest voices were some of the guiltiest of major misinformation, which made it hard for most reasonable folks to take seriously including the social media companies with Zuckerberg for FB coming out and saying they were limiting it till it could be verified by a third party.
Congratulations on believing propaganda instead of your own eyeballs. The transformation is complete.