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
At some point we'll be talking about the US military actions to "protect Taiwan". I just want you to remember this comment when that happens.
Like, whatever you think about China, it really doesn't matter. These stories are only here to serve as a means to manufacture consent for US actions in the future.
It's for more war. Just like Iran. Just keep that in mind as we push further into the next world war. No one writing articles like this cares about the "digital rights conference" and you don't either.
If you cared about "digital rights" or any "rights" you'd be refusing to go to work until the genocidal pedophiles in our government were brought to justice. You don't care.
Caring about stuff isn't a binary, it doesn't hinge on whatever insane purity test you think it does.
You can care about things. But, honestly, when you read an article do you never ask yourself "why am I reading about this and who wants me to think this important?"
Like, let's not use China. A lot of people have a hard time with it. Take for example "trans woman in sports". The conservative brain might be very concerned about this. Why? Do they play sports? Have they even met a trans person? No. But they are told that this is a very important thing. They convince themselves that it's important to their lives.
Now, you (I hope) and I know these types of stories are just forms of manufacturing outrage to direct blame away from the real problems with American society.
That's what I'm talking about in my initial comment. It's just not Trans kids in sports. It's some thing China is doing related to their relations with Taiwan.
Now, the problem is, you don't think "why am I reading about this? Who wants me to care about this?"
You start asking yourself those questions when you read any articles about any of the US "enemies" in global politics. You'll start to see the manufacturing of your concent for more war funding everywhere ; you'll see it as obviously as the "trans kids in sports" is to you today.
I find this pearl clutching over manufactured consent highly obnoxious and borderline archaic. The days of top-down narratives fueled by restricted access are laughably simple compared to the fractured global media ecosystem of today.
Whatever opinions planted in the mind by manufactured consent are dwarfed a thousand-fold by internet echo chambers that owe no allegiance to the state. To be clear I do not think they cannot align with state interests, only that alignment is selfish, non-ubiquitous across vast swathes of the media landscape, and not the result of a power imbalance in favour of the state.
Unless you want to conflate the two in which case I would ask whether you think the .ml instance "manufactures consent" against support of western interests.
Ironically enough, China is one of the few places where manufactured consent is still able to be effective because of the authoritarian stranglehold they maintain on their media by banning access to outside sources and replacing them with state sanctioned alternatives. Same with Iran, Russia, North Korea, etc. It's weird ml's complain about manufactured consent while simping for countries that do it more than anywhere else.
They're definitely gearing up for major anti-China action, but I doubt Trump or the oligarchs are that keen to fight a war they'll lose even worse than the war with Iran. After that disaster, many of the US's potential allies in a war over Taiwan will not be keen on sticking their neck out. Without their support, the US has little chance at stopping China. It'd be much more convenient for them if Taiwan surrenders to China and they can virtue signal about authoritarianism. They might even get the computer parts on backorder for a few years.
The only reason the US would go to war with China is if Trump really is that stupid. In that case, nobody but his cult will really be happy with the outcome.
Thanks for the reasonable response in an array of bad ones.
I'd say when I'm talking about war with China - I don't believe that is going to happen under Trump. There are steps that need to occur before that. Especially in terms of forcing European support via a dependence on American controlled Oil.
So, I don't really disagree with you on the short term. But, there is a reason for the US propaganda to alienate China. They need to maintain them as some evil power that must be stopped.
I don't think the US is gonna be in any position to force European support via oil dependence. The harder they try to bully Europe, the more Europeans are gonna fall into China's camp. This is especially true if China becomes a dominant provider of renewables; the Iran crisis alone has demonstrated the wisdom of diversifying one's energy grid. Besides, Europe will want to become less reliant on oil if they want to be capable of opposing Russian conquest. Between the US and Russia both trying to carve out sections of their countries and spheres of influence, China is a safe and sane bet.
The days of US hegemony are well and truly over, and they will probably not be returning in our lifetimes. Multipolarity was inevitable even before Trump, something that Obama was keenly aware of and tried to navigate around. China was always gonna be a primary power, but thanks to Trump they are probably gonna be number one. They will never replace the US in every respect, but they will take their place as the system for the world to emulate. It will be an era of industrial capitalism and increased barriers to trade, where neoliberalism and the free exchange of goods are things of the past. There will be no more pretending that China is an underdog.
Looks at instance
.ml
Yeah checks out
$1.6 Billion of our tax dollars spent on an influence campaign. https://www.congress.gov/index.php/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7476/text But sure, its a .ml conspiracy /s
I sure hope you were paid to read that, because why else would you waste your time following a 700 page bill that hasn't been passed yet? At a glance it isn't about astroturfing, it's about sanctioning and charging melign actors as criminals, plus a whole ton of stuff from monetary policy to IP protections. It's basically outlining the entire geopolitical strategy towards China, which is probably why it's spent over a year being bounced around 20 different subcommittees.
Idk where you got that price tag seeing as the link you provided contains no budgeting information, but you should ask your handler if that figure is for the entire bill, or for an "influence campaign" specifically. While you wait to hear back from them for that talking point, would you mind showing me where in the bill this influence campaign is outlined?
"Knowing your politics means you're paid to do so"
Unfathomably uneducated take
That's so true almighty knower of politics. Please show me where your knowledge comes from in the above link. You'll find the document is organised into many numbered and lettered sections, so just let me know which section supports this guys unfounded assertion about a $1.6 billion budget for an "influence campaign".
I'm not USian, I don't give a shit about the authenticity, I'm just laughing at your attitude
See now that's a lie, because you said that guy knows his politics, which is a positive claim that turns on the authenticity of his claim. Now you're running away from it because it's increasingly clear he doesn't know shit and you look like a sock for defending him.
Maybe you should change your original comment to "spreading lies about politics means you're paid to do so" which isn't really what I said either, but would at least be close enough to avoid looking completely illiterate.
Took me shorter to find a source than to write a bullshit comment like yours.
That's awesome. I mean that article is trash, but at least it's relevant. It's about a completely different bill (HR 1157) than the one linked above (HR 7476), but that's okay, for now we can chalk it up to platform9469's mistake rather than malicious intent. The latter will be evident after reading the bill, which is only a few pages long.
It's sad, and quite telling, that you felt the need to link an op-ed rather than the bill itself, but we can use it as an opportunity to teach some media literacy.
From the trash op-ed:
What other purposes? Activities financed by the bill are detailed in section 2.e in 7 parts, including the "influence campaign", anti-corruption and anti-crime initiatives, security services(?), and economic development including offering alternative financial assistance for key infrastructure projects.
There's a lot on that list that will cost a lot more than posting shit on social media. Calling it an "influence campaign" hardly does it justice, this is a wholistic expression of a countries soft power into regions that will benefit from it. That $1.6 billion will go towards more than any terminally online ml has ever imagined.
Speaking of money, let's see what this opinion slop you posted says about that:
Well now, that's just a straight up lie. CNN doesn't even share it's expenses because it's a subsidiary of WB which groups CNN with other networks they own together in their expense reports, so idk how this Harvard genius figured it out. Estimates I've seen floating around put their annual expenditure at 1.2 billion. This bill allocates $325 million per year. We don't even know what this clown thinks the real CNN number is because he doesn't bother providing one.
He vaguely gestures towards the GEC and USAID so he can frame things as extra bad while saying basically nothing. He's probably happy that Trump deleted the GEC and USAID a few months later.
The slop slinger then brings up a "vision document", which as far as I can tell is like fan-fiction for military people, as an example of what this could all look like. A horrible story of honest Chinese capitalists being astroturfed and robbed of their business opportunities. It's a pity none of the language in the bill describes anything like this. Instead of tearing down the ops, the bill details providing alternative options for a wide range of things to whatever organisations need them so they don't need to rely on Chinese support.
He ends with something I thought was pretty funny, contemplating the potential for what he imagines the plan is to backfire by eroding trust in anti-china information by virtue of people being aware that the US has an interest in spreading it. Ignoring the fact that China does the exact same thing and we have multiple instances of ml's, plus myriad other leftist slopulists, who eat that shit up without a thought.
So yea, it didn't take you much effort to dig up some rando headline with a vestigial op-ed attached to it, but it didn't get you anywhere. You actually have to read shit and understand it, not just blindly follow every contrarian sock with a world-view throwing headlines at you.
Got owned
Looks at instance
.ml
Yeah checks out
I don't think the ".ml so wrong" NPCs realize that their just doing free promotion for Marxist when that's their only response to comments over and over. They're not saying anything. They're just relying on others, that already fall for Imperialist propaganda, to continue to believe lies.
It's what prompted me to start reading here. And .ml is more informed than the biggest instances of Lemmy, combined.
These stories are here to remind that there is an elephant in the room. Fortunately it's only breathing loudly at the moment.
China has territorial ambitions regarding several neighbours (sea areas) and serious ambitions about Taiwan, and unless we - the international community - can help Taiwan and other countries achieve a peaceful co-existence with China (and this means backing them!)...
(note: air raid simulations with 100+ aircraft testing Taiwan's responses or naval blockade simulations with tens of warships around the island are not peaceful coexistence, and China has been running such exercises)
...then we better start learning how to make microchips in every country and obviously pay for that. Because if war happens, Taiwan will be in ruins and China under a boycott, possibly with a few strategic locations also in ruins - and the rest of the world in a severe economic crisis due to lack of microchips.
If someone is bullying someone else, the wider community is expected to intervene and dissuade agression.
So yes, what we are seeing is a prelude, which will likely lead, if not dissuaded, to agression against Taiwan at some day in future. What the rest of the world thinks about on that day, is not yet determined. The US and Japan and South Korea have previously made fairly clear what they will think, but recently the US is running headless.
I think Europe's best hope regarding Taiwan, is to establishing a EU-NATO partnership where Europe protects Taiwan, getting military chips in return. If Europe doesn't do that, the only good alternative is to develop their own chip technology to at least equal China.
Another possibility is India protecting Taiwan. India isn't friendly with China, and being able to have top-end technology would very much help India in the decades to come. There is much soft and practical power to having the chips.
Johnny Harris? Is that you? I hope the CIA is paying you at least.
Who is Johnny Harris? You can find me here. Once you figure out the agency who pays me, tell me too, I'll go and cash in then. :)
In return for the quesiton, I will ask you - which news sources do you use?
Ah I get. Johnny Harris is a popular YouTuber that once worked with the CIA (obviously still does) that does a lot of "China is a concern" content. He's a typical US imperialism supporting liberal. Basically says the exact type of shit from your first comment.
You know what the difference between a liberal and an anarchist is?
The former actually gets paid to spread CIA talking points about China. I guess you're just the later. Sorry, I'm sure you understand why I would have been confused. It's so hard to tell the difference between neocon liberals and anti China anarchist these days.
Reminder: every large centralized state - not just China - is a threat, especially if it has no democracy, an easy-to-manipulate democracy, or a democracy standing on its last legs.
💯
liberals are fore front on manufacturing consent for that war, I am sure they will do anything to maintain their military base besides china.