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.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
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 OCTOBER 19 2025
-
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
Is that what your attention span lasts? Or are you leaving the rest of the comment out on purpose for some reason?
When an influencer is literally anyone online, then yes: anyone. Nothing else you wrote matters, because anyone can be an influencer.
People should be held accountable for their lapses in judgement to believe whatever: they aren't mindless automatons. We can't depend on anyone (certainly not big daddy government) but ourselves to think critically for us.
So you didn't read past the first sentence, got it.
Nah, your point is worthless. Here's a nice picture.
Ah... I see... My bad, I understood it too late that I wasn't talking with someone able to fully read a comment before making a "sharp" remark about it.
Get butthurt all you want about others not caring about & disagreeing with your point.
Someone's lack of sense to question unreliable information is entirely their fault. That's no justification to violate a fundamental right.
Not butthurt at all. I just accepted that I'm not discussing with someone capable of reading a comment beyond the first sentence of it. It's fine tho, I'm not gonna explain it again just because you refuse to read the first comment.
You don't need to explain your delusion that critics didn't read your comment.
"I'm a free speech absolutist who can't read and believes that people shouldn't be held responsible for what they say".
You're not a critic, you just sound awfully like a maga snowflake yelling "but muh freedom!".
Nah, shit argument: mere falsehoods do not incite imminent, unlawful harm. The time to discuss & criticize that speech before acting is unbounded. Any harm is the own doing & responsibility of someone failing to exercise reasonable sense of challenging unsound information & sources.
You keep sounding like a maga snowflake that doesn't like when their words bring them consequences. It's fine tho, I understand that you are not equipped to understand the nuances of freedom of speech and its limitations.
Calling anyone who doesn't oppose free speech MAGA (a straw man or ad hominem fallacy) isn't serving you. Mere falsehoods do not constitute violations of free speech limitations (eg, true threats, defamation, imminent lawless action). Try respecting logic.
You are trying to debate something you haven't read in the first place. And you ask me to "respect logic". I mean... try respecting logic?
You just seem offended by something you simply refuse to read, which is very much in line with what MAGAs do. As I said, you are not ready to discuss the limits to free speech and the concept of "consequences to what you say".
I refer you back to
Everything else you wrote was addressed.
Right: criticism, condemnation.
Those taking ill-advised actions causing actual (not imaginary) harm must bear the consequences of their actions, not anyone else who didn't make them do it.
See? But you didn't address anything because, by your own admission, you didn't read my comment. So you don't even know what you are criticizing. You are just butthurt because someone dared to defy "your freedom".
Just admit that you don't want responsibilities for your words. That's it, that's all you are saying. And that is a very MAGA thing.