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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 9 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] stinkytofuisgood@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago

It 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.