politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Wasn’t asking you and I have no idea why anyone would care about your specific input. This was a suggestion based on the source of the article, not the fact you posted it.
This seemed unnecessarily harsh. By stating "no issues" instead of objecting, OP was basically making the path smoother (as mods would have to take into account or at least briefly consider dissident opinions if they existed).
And ... while I specifically get why you wouldn't want to consider OP's opinion in particular, OP is not the only one who post links from link aggregators. And it's worth asking if any of the folks who do so why they have done so and if they would have any objections.
In fact jordanlund brought up a good one - that maybe it's worth allowing because we sometimes get original news articles from those sites as well. Perhaps we could allow only original new articles from those sites but not copies of articles sourced from elsewhere.
I'd bring up a second potential objection to address - sometimes MSN and Yahoo will post articles in full from WSJ, Financial Times, etc. Basically being an alternative to a paywall. (And being the most unobjectable kind of paywall bypassing as these sites presumably got permission to post those articles in full from the original source.) So maybe that means we allow only original new articles from those sites plus copies of articles sourced from paywalled sites, but otherwise not copies of articles sourced from elsewhere.
You’re welcome to your opinion but the mods already made their decision so you’re late to the party
Ah interesting, I hadn't see where the decision was announced (maybe federation was slow at sending the update). Mind linking or recapping here?
I might be late to the party, but aside from the "unnecessarily harsh" bit (which doesn't involve the moderators) I didn't express any opinions, so no harm done fortunately.
https://lemmy.world/post/20721204
As for the rest, I don’t know your gender identity but I have to say you come across very mansplain-y.
Just the comment thread above (which I can accept as an exceptional case) or in general across all my posts and comments (which would be a lot more worrisome) ?
Now that you've brought up gender identify, I realized that I made a mistake - I had the unconscious assumption that I was replying to a guy, which was absolutely wrong of me. I need to sit back and reflect on this.
Anyways, thank you for the link!
Public forum. I can give or decline to give my input. You gave your input. I gave mine. Thank you!
Spoken like a true main character. So your input was essentially “I have no opinion”? Thank goodness you cleared that up for us, bud!
Remember that’s not “charactor” - I know you have trouble with that one.