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.
-
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
What’s the argument against a ban? I don’t see a downside to banning social media for kids. In theory they would be forced to build in-person social connections and local communities. After 16 they can expand into the social media space. Personally, I think it should be tied to something like drinking age.
It depends how it will be implemented. Do you want to send your ID to Facebook etc.? Or do you want to make a video call before you can use a social media site? Will only the big players be required to keep your age verification details, or will each forum, each Fediverse site be required to gather and keep your personal ID?
Exactly:
not so terrible way to do it: to verify your age you get redirected to government run service, you authenticate with you digital ID, get redirected back to original site with information about you age only
terrible way to do it: tell each site to handle age verification on their side
Knowing Spanish government they will go with the terrible way.
So now the government has absolute detail on every single thing you need to authenticate for, online. Nothing could go wrong there.
I don't think there's any good safe way for verification to even be achieved, even if there was a good reason for it, which, honestly, I think there isn't.
Agreed this way is bad, but there can be a safe way of doing it. Basically, your digital ID has a way of signing that you are over 18 without giving any details. Estonia's digital ID can do this. Imagine your digital ID has a way to sign documents with your age, but no other information. That way sites can know you're over 18, without knowing your name, and the government doesn't know what site you're signing up to.
A less technical example of how this could work for the sake of explanation: You ask the government for a piece of paper that says you're over 18. They don't ask why you need it. All it has is a government stamp on it, saying you're over 18. You give that piece of paper to someone trying to verify you're over 18. They now know nothing about you other than that you're over 18, and the government knows nothing about your activity other than that you want to prove your age for some reason.
Kids can still just use a VPN to get around this, but at least it doesn't compromise the security of adults.
And I can just sell my "you're over 18" paper to some kid and he can use it. Spanish government proposed anonymous age verification certs some time ago. It's also better solution than letting privet companies handle the verification but it doesn't really solve anything. One leaked cert can be used by all the kids in Spain. If it's truly anonymous you will never know who leaked it. If it's not anonymous then... you know.
Find info on cl@ve.
That's why I said it's 'not so terrible' way, not that it's a good way.
I don't see a big issue with people authenticating this way for Facebook or Twitter. They government will basically know that "this person is using Facebook". They don't even have to know your username or anything. It gets problematic when we get to more controversial apps and porn so it's still bad, just not as bad as letting Facebook scan people faces and IDs.