OP, literally Rule 1 bullet point 1 of this comm.
-
I don't have the bandwidth to explain if you don't want to see it. He broke rule 1 and he's a jackass for condemning child genocide in [email protected]. Ban him. Based on what I see here, I'm sure artisanal cheese is way better suited for that type of discussion anyway.
Dude, I don't even have the bandwidth to translate this comment into a coherent English paragraph. As best I can tell, it's just a bizarre strawman about banning(???) instead of removing an off-topic post, and it's done as a deflection from you "not having the bandwidth" (read: being unable because you know it was nonsense) to justify why you called it "card says moops".
-
It's a self published opinion news story.
I trust this author more than those rags like newsweek and the daily beast that get green light all the time on herewrote on last edited by [email protected]I would like to see Newsweek blacklisted here too. Would you like to advocate for that, or would you like to sit around and whataboutism for a Mastodon post that you're trying to dishonestly distort into a "self published opinion news story"?
And even if you're seriously going to pretend you buy your own "card says moops" bullshit when you say that, what do you have to say to the final bullet point of Rule 1 that disallows links to other social media "like Twitter"?
-
Dude, I don't even have the bandwidth to translate this comment into a coherent English paragraph. As best I can tell, it's just a bizarre strawman about banning(???) instead of removing an off-topic post, and it's done as a deflection from you "not having the bandwidth" (read: being unable because you know it was nonsense) to justify why you called it "card says moops".
I had to google it...I think he's referring to the Burning Man term for "Matter Out of Place". So I think he's agreeing with you that this link doesn't belong in this community.
-
Legit confused on why you got down voted so hard. I am guessing people are confused by your comment, see the edit and decide to downvote you just because it feels right
Whatever. I believe my words.
-
Can I ask if you seriously care about downvotes? Also, some downvotes and one comment is a pretty low bar for "dog piling."
I get what you’re saying though. It’s important enough that it should be everywhere. But is that what op did? Idc enough to check every instance but maybe they didn’t and that’s why no one likes your comment?
Ftr, I lean a bit in your favor for your original comment or at least your intention. I do downvote every post that bitches about downvotes though.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I feel like this is the issue that will haunt us forever if we don't stand on the right side. That's it. I've fought for Palestinian rights in one form or another since the second Intifada. My ex, a Jordanian photo journalist, opened my eyes to this 25 years ago.
There's no other moral or ethical way.
-
I feel like this is the issue that will haunt us forever if we don't stand on the right side. That's it. I've fought for Palestinian rights in one form or another since the second Intifada. My ex, a Jordanian photo journalist, opened my eyes to this 25 years ago.
There's no other moral or ethical way.
No one disagrees with that and it wasn’t why you were downvoted.
-
I feel like this is the issue that will haunt us forever if we don't stand on the right side. That's it. I've fought for Palestinian rights in one form or another since the second Intifada. My ex, a Jordanian photo journalist, opened my eyes to this 25 years ago.
There's no other moral or ethical way.
I don't think anyone is arguing your opinion, it's just this is not the right venue for an opinion.
-
I would like to see Newsweek blacklisted here too. Would you like to advocate for that, or would you like to sit around and whataboutism for a Mastodon post that you're trying to dishonestly distort into a "self published opinion news story"?
And even if you're seriously going to pretend you buy your own "card says moops" bullshit when you say that, what do you have to say to the final bullet point of Rule 1 that disallows links to other social media "like Twitter"?
It's up to mods how they rule this place.
I just say it's dumb and I'm not dishonest at all anyone can be a journalist and everyone can get published and I don't know why the opinion of the owner of newsweek and similar yellow press should decide what is posted here and what not. -
It's a self published opinion news story.
I trust this author more than those rags like newsweek and the daily beast that get green light all the time on hereIn other words, a blog post.
-
It's up to mods how they rule this place.
I just say it's dumb and I'm not dishonest at all anyone can be a journalist and everyone can get published and I don't know why the opinion of the owner of newsweek and similar yellow press should decide what is posted here and what not.wrote on last edited by [email protected]I don’t know why the opinion of the owner of newsweek and similar yellow press should decide what is posted here and what not.
Alright, instead of falling for a farcical red herring and debating the merits of a Mastodon post as "self published opinion news", I'll cut to the heart of the matter: what the fuck are you talking about?
- Palestinians describe choice between starvation and risking death to get food aid in Gaza from PBS News two hours ago
- Updates: 18 in Gaza die from starvation in one day amid Israeli blockade from Al Jazeera today
- Four-year-old girl dies of hunger in Gaza as Israel throttles food supply from CNN today
- Malnutrition reaches new heights in Gaza, children most affected from the Agence France-Presse today
- Pope condemns Gaza war’s ‘barbarity’ as 85 reported killed while waiting for food from The Guardian today
- Officials say 85 Palestinians seeking aid are killed in Gaza as Israel widens evacuation orders from the Associated Press today
- Nearly 100 people killed seeking aid in Gaza on Sunday, Palestinian officials say from NPR today
- Israel fire kills dozens more aid seekers in Gaza, medics say, as hunger worsens from USA Today today
- Israeli Troops Kill Dozens Seeking Food Near Border, Gazan Officials Say from The New York Times today
And that's just about the starvation and just from today and just that short because I couldn't be bothered to spend more than five minutes looking. All of these sources are allowed here; none of them are yellow press. Quit your bullshit; nobody's gatekeeping this, and if they were, it wouldn't be Newsweek et al.
-
I don’t know why the opinion of the owner of newsweek and similar yellow press should decide what is posted here and what not.
Alright, instead of falling for a farcical red herring and debating the merits of a Mastodon post as "self published opinion news", I'll cut to the heart of the matter: what the fuck are you talking about?
- Palestinians describe choice between starvation and risking death to get food aid in Gaza from PBS News two hours ago
- Updates: 18 in Gaza die from starvation in one day amid Israeli blockade from Al Jazeera today
- Four-year-old girl dies of hunger in Gaza as Israel throttles food supply from CNN today
- Malnutrition reaches new heights in Gaza, children most affected from the Agence France-Presse today
- Pope condemns Gaza war’s ‘barbarity’ as 85 reported killed while waiting for food from The Guardian today
- Officials say 85 Palestinians seeking aid are killed in Gaza as Israel widens evacuation orders from the Associated Press today
- Nearly 100 people killed seeking aid in Gaza on Sunday, Palestinian officials say from NPR today
- Israel fire kills dozens more aid seekers in Gaza, medics say, as hunger worsens from USA Today today
- Israeli Troops Kill Dozens Seeking Food Near Border, Gazan Officials Say from The New York Times today
And that's just about the starvation and just from today and just that short because I couldn't be bothered to spend more than five minutes looking. All of these sources are allowed here; none of them are yellow press. Quit your bullshit; nobody's gatekeeping this, and if they were, it wouldn't be Newsweek et al.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]True nobody's gatekeeping this, the post is still up.
-
Legit confused on why you got down voted so hard. I am guessing people are confused by your comment, see the edit and decide to downvote you just because it feels right
Because "its bigger than the rules" is stupid. There is tens of thousands of posts on lemmy covering this topic.
-
So think of it this way. A person signs up for lemmy, by choosing specific communities to join they are giving consent for a specific range of information to be delivered to thier screen. By breaking the rules of a community you are essentially violating the consent of the members of that community.
I feel your struggle though. You want to do "something". The vast majority of people on the planet do too. And there doesn't seem to be a community for just bringing up a topic in general. I assume they are just too hard to moderate. But that doesn't make it right to just break the rules of this community.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]By breaking the rules of a community you are essentially violating the consent of the members of that community.
Boards like these are public or at least quasi public spaces. No one is actually forcing you to read or engage with any specific post or comment.
I would say that significant deviation from the intended content of the community is one thing. Personal attacks, intentional misinformation, arguing in bad faith, harassment, etc has no place. But claiming that OP "violated people's consent" has a serious connotation, and I think it is a real stretch to apply that here.
If the post bothers you enough, you can always report it and then simply ignore the post. Even block the OP, especially if they have a pattern of behavior that your find inappropriate.
-
Okay, so it can go in one of the like 500 communities where this is relevant. If it's bigger than the rules, why did OP, with one exception, choose to do none of that and instead exclusively post it into news communities where it's not supposed to be? Where it will quickly get removed?
"This is bigger than the rules", I say like a jackass, as I go post this into a community about artisinal cheeses.
Fuck Israel. They are committing genocide through starvation. That's why this deserves to go somewhere it's actually supposed to be, and OP knows where those places are.
Where it will quickly get removed?
Apparently not that quickly. OP is shown as "15 hours ago," as of right now.
-
Where it will quickly get removed?
Apparently not that quickly. OP is shown as "15 hours ago," as of right now.
It seems like @[email protected] is the only active mod of this comm. Plausible it slipped past them. So in the event 1) the rules are actually enforced with literally any consistency and 2) jordan notices, it ought to be removed quickly. As best I can tell, our OP who was too lazy to just post one of the mountain of news articles lucked out.
-
It seems like @[email protected] is the only active mod of this comm. Plausible it slipped past them. So in the event 1) the rules are actually enforced with literally any consistency and 2) jordan notices, it ought to be removed quickly. As best I can tell, our OP who was too lazy to just post one of the mountain of news articles lucked out.
Wow, 1 active mod for a sub with this level of activity? I actually don't know what would be considered typical, but gut instinct tells me more than 1.
-
By breaking the rules of a community you are essentially violating the consent of the members of that community.
Boards like these are public or at least quasi public spaces. No one is actually forcing you to read or engage with any specific post or comment.
I would say that significant deviation from the intended content of the community is one thing. Personal attacks, intentional misinformation, arguing in bad faith, harassment, etc has no place. But claiming that OP "violated people's consent" has a serious connotation, and I think it is a real stretch to apply that here.
If the post bothers you enough, you can always report it and then simply ignore the post. Even block the OP, especially if they have a pattern of behavior that your find inappropriate.
I didn't imply any connotations. Any added to the phrase is done so by the reader. So it doesn't invalidate the validity of the statement. People signed up for the content the community described. This post is not that. People are debating that, and I am sharing my opinion. Just because I could take various actions to prevent it in the future, doesn't make the original action ok. Saying otherwise is just justifing more posts of this kind.
-
It's a self published opinion news story.
I trust this author more than those rags like newsweek and the daily beast that get green light all the time on hereSo, an opinion piece?
-
I didn't imply any connotations. Any added to the phrase is done so by the reader. So it doesn't invalidate the validity of the statement. People signed up for the content the community described. This post is not that. People are debating that, and I am sharing my opinion. Just because I could take various actions to prevent it in the future, doesn't make the original action ok. Saying otherwise is just justifing more posts of this kind.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I didn’t imply any connotations.
Imply? You straight up said, and I quote "violating the consent of the members of that community."
People signed up for the content the community described. This post is not that.
Social media is never going to be 100% the content that is described in the sidebar or forum description. There's always going to be some deviation, some off-topic, and some marginal content. I didn't sign up for meta debate about whether the act of posting non-conforming content is violating people's consent or not, yet here we are.
Just because I could take various actions to prevent it in the future, doesn’t make the original action ok.
The stakes on this are super low such that actions to prevent it in the future, and the options that you have available to you, are good enough. The original action may be dubious, but it frankly isn't that big of a deal. OP didn't post something that is abusive, misinformation, or otherwise harmful. Nor have they been spamming posts here. You are spending more time worrying about it than it would have taken you to simply ignore the post and move on.
If this is truly an issue for you, you should stick to more tightly-moderated segments of social media. That may admittedly be difficult to find on Lemmy due to the lower user base; another commenter pointed out that there is only 1 active mod for this sub. You may find that the modding on some of the larger Reddit subs to be more to your liking.
Anyhow, I've said my piece and I'm moving on.
-
In other words, a blog post.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]A lot of news is just blog posts on a site that claims to be more than a vlog. But is it really. Sometimes what gets classified as news is poorly researched as fuck. And then this "news" end up on trashy blog sites that run 10x more ads than most blog sites. I don't buy appeal to authority fallacies so the fact that those articles are written by "journalists" is irrelevant. Modern journalists don't act like journalists because they write crap.
90% of news is a hair away from blog spam once you ask the Socratic questions, what is blog? what is news?
