In my opinion.
It’s fine, but it’s too common in online communities (including Lemmy) and it discourages people from posting their original thoughts or events that they find important and relevant, since something needs to come from a ‘real news source’ or an ‘online article’.
I can make a website right now and call it “The Daily Pragmatist” or some shit and people won’t bat an eye.
Reality also is that many reach conclusions based on titles alone anyhow. I can’t see how it would be worse, since the body of the post is always going to be a tad more accessible than opening a new website. And we see how little people want to work to gather their knowledge, on the whole.
I get removing crappy content, but what about when thoughts are backed up with sources and opinions are relevant to overall discussion?
And separately, what’s up with aversion to ‘non-standard’ forms of expression? I would argue that something like the show ‘The Rehearsal’ by Nathan Fielder, is an equally valid way to deliver real and important news to people. I wouldn’t be alone in this sentiment.
Imo this shit is busted and dumb.
Edit: for those that agree in part or in whole, if you have the bandwidth for it, consider making your own community! Lemmy is still relatively small and your local instance might be even more so. It’s not impossible to get a community going, and if it fails - oh well!
You must log in or # to comment.
I got chastised on /news when I posted about an ABC article being censored and removed, because there wasn’t an article about it being censored and removed.
I included original links and archive links and articles talking about abc facing ongoing censorship. But no news source had written an article about this particular act of censorship.
Original content is good, but something I see sometimes and really dislike is unsourced screenshots of text, or otherwise something that contains factual claims that do not point you to a way to read more and verify them. Even if it happens to be true, normalizing that increases our susceptibility to misinformation by making it more difficult to detect and call out.
Totally
The comment section is a great place to post your well thought out and sourced opinions. I’d rather read the source up front in the post and then get opinions from strangers in the comments than the other way around.
Most of the ones with article requirements also have rules about source reliability/reputation so your idea about making a new site to post your thoughts and linking to that wouldn’t work for long.
Most of the ones with article requirements also have rules about source
reliability/reputationsubjective viewpointIt would still gain traction before somebody noticed. And what does that say about the community?
Do they agree with the content of your ‘fake’ site? Do they just want to hear something they agree with regardless of the source?
I totally get your point. It’s still busted and dumb.
I respectfully disagree.
If you want a place to discuss opinions, that’s what comments sections are for. Or communities dedicated to discussion.
But news communities are generally rooted in facts. For current news, that means sourced, methodological journalism. Discussion stems from facts
I can make a website right now and call it “The Daily Pragmatist” or some shit and people won’t bat an eye.
This is one of the worst issues plaguing Lemmy, IMO. People post stuff from outright tabloids, random Tweet screenshots, and those kind of websites Wikipedia will outright reject as a source. This is a huge problem, but it means that communities should be more rigorous about information hygiene, TBH. They need to be stricter about what is allowed as source.
Reality also is that many reach conclusions based on titles alone anyhow.
I hate this too. But to fight it, I think Lemmy needs to steal the “community correction” thing Twitter does, so people would see community consensus right below the headline.
And I am very serious about this. I will die on this hill.
I’m not saying more discussion spaces shouldn’t exist, that’s great; but news communities should be for news.
Honestly… I have gotten close to deleting my Lemmy account and leaving, because the information hygiene is getting as bad as Reddit here. I did not come to Lemmy to engage in conspiracies and misinformation.
And the community feeling the opposite is not making me feel any better. I’ve seen other Reddit clones do down like this.
I think we actually agree but there might be a partial misunderstanding. There was an example another commenter made of their experience with Xcancel. I think that explains it a bit more clearly.
Edit: this comment
Eh. I still (respectfully) disagree.
I think that’s newsworthy; but it should have linked the dev announcement, or GitHub thread, or wherever the information was sourced from.
If /c/technology won’t allow direct posts from developers, that is indeed a problem for /c/technology, as that’s a first party source for topical news.
But to make my position clear:
-
If that poster was intended to post without a source, that should be against the rules. It’s how I would moderate /c/technology.
-
There are other communities to post that to.
-
Hence, I don’t agree that this issue should be generalized. Communities need to straighten out sourcing rules to be more practical, especially to allow topical first party sources, but I don’t think they should loosen sourcing rules.
If Lemmy/Piefed has discoverability issues for small communities or an under moderation issues, I think those are structural, and we should change how the site works to address them.
Fair enough. Let’s agree to disagree! 🫲
-
If you want a place to discuss opinions, that’s what comments sections are for.
People who arbitrarily ban content also arbitrarily ban comments and users.
But news communities are generally rooted in facts.
Curated “facts” from hegemonic sources.
This is one of the worst issues plaguing Lemmy, IMO.
Not IMO.
news communities should be for news.
Whose news? There’s a deep assumption of objectivity here that is completely wrong.
Well… Our points of view are so far apart, I don’t even know where to begin.
Sourcing, information hygiene, proof, and science are irrefutably central to the way I wish to interact with the world. It should be the bedrock of any healthy online community structure, IMO.
Places where that’s not enforced are place people just echo what they want to hear, in my experience. Whether its true or not is secondary, as apparently information hygiene is too “heirarchal” and constricting.
I don’t want that. I don’t want anything to do with the Fediverse if that’s what it becomes, and it sure feels like many users want that.
It bothers me about how news/article-centric Lemmy is in general.
The arbitrary and subjective restriction of alternative content helps maintain the hegemonic narrative.
That’s what requiring articles from the NYTimes, NPR, etc. is really about.
Liberalism 101.
I feel like if the rules say only articles, then a screenshot of a tweet is breaking the rules. Just sub to different communities if full discourse is what you’re interested in. It’s out there.
