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.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
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. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating 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
Yep. Blows my mind. Would love to know what the hell triggered people to downvote, and what triggered a moderator to delete it [1].
Clearly, either some kind of misunderstanding, [and/]or, they're complicit in the crime and favouring the conflation that serves children and underage teenagers to them, and wanting to challenge the threat to their Lolita express embedded in this conflationary cultural trope of hate [because this practice is worse than it is in law and statutes ~ which even that needs mending].
Otherwise, what's the thinking behind downvoting and deleting a post that calls for human rights and protecting children?
I failed to get any cogent argument that appeared outside these two options, misunderstanding and/or plausible complicity.
Which would not surprise, since such deviancy would be attracted to such articles, and therein no surprise that the reply tackling the issue in a manner that may actually lead to protecting children gets attacked.
Or maybe it was just a misunderstanding born of hot heads.
*shrug*
I remain open to other possibilities, and very much welcome suggestions or explanations of what else it could be. Would love to know what, if anything, was really wrong with what I said [in substance or style], or even just what was perceived as wrong, beyond all the completely inverting the point of it, like happened in most replies.
Was it removed because it was perceived as prejudice against paedophiles, and that was perceived, by the mod, as in breach of Rule 4?
I thought the point of my post was to protect children.
Curious how some of the replies to my reply blatantly and repeatedly break Rule 5
, yet they remain.
But then, beneath the rules here, it does also say:
Would be good if mods offered reasons why. Otherwise, how are we to know? Without reason offered, to those who don't know why, it appears arbitrary, and that has several negative effects on the communication atmosphere.
I do hope I figure out what it was. I do hope it's not the vilest of answers to the situation (~ as hypothesised as a possibility: the complicity gang, attacking a threat to their supply (~ unfortunately, as it would most appear to be, in absence of reason). I'm going to be thinking about this for a while. ... How rife is the problem? Is that why it's not being mended? The entire system captured by the complicit? Or just too daunting a conceptual leap, to face the horror, that we're all complicit, by our hate, by our love, in handing our children over to the worst, increasing the value of our children to them... it's not pleasant. Don't kill the messenger ffs, or it'll keep happening. This is no time for head-in-the-sand.
[1:(annoyingly disallowing subsequent readers to make up their own mind, lending spurious weight behind all the replies that completely misunderstood/misrepresented it, cherry-picking, quoting out of context, strawmanning, etc)]
::: spoiler was it how it was worded? too challenging?
Too many words. People aren't reading it and just assume you're defending paedophiles. The same reason people are downvoting me as soon as they see "age of consent" and not reading the rest.
I have three news communities. Almost every active comment section has someone who argues based on the headline and nothing else. Some folks don't like to read.
:/ yep.
My instinct is to rip their[1] throats out.
But that's part of the problem that has them hide all the more, preventing remedy, turning them more and more malignant, feeding traffickers and blackmailers.
[1: The pedos. ... Not those who don't read. Oops. Important clarification. LOL.]
Don't want to get modded for threatening violence when ten people are telling you off and calling you a paedo.
I agree, getting rid of paedophiles means either killing or treating them. Since the death penalty is a massive human rights abuse, guess we gotta treat them.
I'm an avowed pacifist, with an ongoing oath of non-violence.
That's merely an instinct, that I'm aware of.
There's always a better way (than violence).
It's good to be aware. Both of this in myself, and how it's used societally.
Since it's recognised as a mental illness, one would think that would make it easy to have treatment be the remedy. But our love of our children, of course, has us easily reflex hatefully at those who abuse our children. And this in turn gets used as a political football, and raises the value of our children to traffickers, blackmailers, and of course, with the forbidden-fruit reverse psychology and thrill of it, child-rapists.
It gets even more difficult, beyond just prohibition not preventing (and making the good things bad and the bad things worse), in that there are dangerous precedent potentials being set in the treatment avenue, akin to the whole conversion therapy and other behaviourist (mis)treatments. Two wrongs. One may easily argue that this is by far the lesser wrong; the lesser evil, and the greater good, but it's the camel's nose back in the tent after decades of trying to get rid of it. Almost like we're being played with a problem reaction solution ploy.
And many of the other treatments more benign to those being treated, lead us back to horrors too dire to consider, for the safety of our children. We cannot supplant these same strategies used for drug use and addiction, to child abuse. There are no safe use spaces viable as solutions for this problem.
Dehumanising them, and killing them, opens the door to abuse, rife with false accusations to eliminate political opponents or any targets of bigotry... and again, increases the value of our children to the most immoral unethical abusers, accelerating that degeneracy, moral depravity, turning it into the darkest of black market industry, that perverts our entire political system, with blackmailers putting in their own kakistarch puppets.
Leaving a false equivalence of hormonal post-pubescent teenagers with youths, children, toddlers, babies, in the minds of formed masses, supplies a great many more (often eager) targets (denied the right to consent), sending them to the black market, to the worst, where they're groomed, and their johns get blackmailed, and we're back in this dangerous situation all the worse, and all our children are not just left more unsafe, but actively made more alluring targets to this abuse industry.
There are no easy answers that are good.
My original point remains loud to me...