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. 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 10/19
-
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
Excellent, I'm pretty sure the agency has evidence to back up their claim, so it's almost 100% certain IMO that AfD will lose, and the claim will be confirmed in a court of law.
AfD is digging their own grave here.
Only if their base actually cares (and on the aggregate over time).
No that's not what I mean, their base probably doesn't give a shit. But if they lose the case, it validates the report more than the agency can ever do themselves, and it can be used against AfD in other situations too. It may also justify it for parliament to ban the party.
Sorry, I was being a bit cheeky. I hear your points and they are valid.
Well they could also use it for trying to get what kind of sources the agency has... That and to be able to lean even more on to the far rights persecution complex...
Though I do hope you are more correct than me here...
They tried that before, the Verfassungsschutz will say, publicly, something along the lines of "Two of these 500 quotes are from our moles". That way they protect their sources, vanishing in the general soup, while the court can see that it's party sentiment, not something injected into the party by the Verfassungsschutz. Judges will be able to see the whole uncensored thing one way or the other though it might not necessarily the judges actually judging the case: There's special in camera senates in high courts for when some agency really doesn't want to show stuff. They can look at absolutely anything, and all they have to judge is "yep, it was indeed 2 of 500 quotes".
I'm no expert here, but the 1100 page report is confidential AFAIK, and I don't think the court will demand that to be handed over.
The agency will probably present evidence in a way that doesn't compromise agents. I would be surprised if it can't be done with publicly available information.