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
That is beyond stupid. Hell our brains aren't fully developed at 18 , at 16?
Some people make it to their 70's without a fully developed brain.
Some people become president of the world's most heavily armed nation without one
Yep. To all of what you said.
Still. It's a bad idea. I think we all know it if we really think about
What are your thoughts on people with degenerative brain diseases being able to vote?
Should you have to take a test once you hit 70 to confirm you are still aware enough to vote in an informed way? (Should you be able to work in politics after 70?)
I admit I'm taking it to the extreme to make a point but if you can work and pay tax at 16, I think being able to vote makes sense.
the age limit is not about closing people out entirely, but limit it while they are more gullible. sure there's lots of fools beyond 18, but the concept is that hopefully most people as they ahe, become less so, and much of that process happens around age 18 and somewhat beyond.
now add that kids today are not only exposed to shit spreading on facebook but now tiktok too, and they don't know when they are being deceived. source: I didn't know with facebook when I was in that age.
look, there were not too many elections yet on which I could have voted. but I think even 18 might be too early. I remember that I just missed an election by a few months, and today I'm ashamed of what would have been my choice. I almost voted for a party that looked ashamed of its corrupt past, just because they acknowledged it and promised it wouldn't happen again.
this is not a step forward.
If your main points are around misinformation, propaganda, fake new, ai generated content or anything that convinces people of something that is false, I would say this is a huge, but separate issue that affects everyone, not just 16-17 year olds.
Younger people consume different types of media and paying influencers to pick political sides doesn't seem to be as uncommon as I would like.
That being said, Cambridge analytica already showed us that the age groups that can vote are not immune to have their opinions manipulated via targeted misinformation.
They are just as fucked as we are, let them vote.
okay. but then just delete the age limit. lets have kindergarten aged kids vote. what could go wrong?
If we are taking things to extremes to make the point.
You plan would be to block anyone that may be gullible from voting.
The question is how? Forced iq tests or level of education achieved. Maybe some demographics are more susceptible? Age, race, gender? Maybe location. Are rural communities less likely to consume propaganda? Are they more likely?
It seems the original argument was that if at 16 you can join the army and fight in a war, should you get a voice on if we go to war?
I think yes.
where did I say that? my suggestion is to not increase the proportion of gullible people, perhaps reduce it by slightly increasing the age limit (like to 20)
some kind of test would be ideal, but it sounds like Pandora's box. an assumed "good" administration starts doing it, but even if it's done fairly at the beginning, it's too easy to change it to be used discriminatively
I'm confident that 16 year olds should neither have voting rights, nor be allowed to go to war.
You didn't, you took my point to the extreme when you said this:
I was doing the same to your point to show how ridiculous it sounds when you exaggerate any of these ideas.
What I would add that got pointed out to me today is, that if we have a general election every 5 years, someone who turns 18 just after an election potentially may not be able to vote for the first time untill they almost 23.
Again, my opinion is that being able to vote for the first time between 16-20 sounds a lot better than voting for the first time between 18-22.
I agree that's unfortunate, the first vote I was eligible for was at 21. It's not ideal. I think a better solution would be to have more (meaningful) votes (not necessarily with shorther terms)
I'm not sure. I would rather just increase the age limit to 20, and implement a fix to have more times you can vote.
Those are good questions
I do think that our voting public needs more education and we needed to have age appropriate, and yes , at times medical consitions may have to be looked at.
I feel that the last part I can speak to a bit( I am not a doctor or anything) as I grew up with a mother who was left with extreme tbi after an accident but could still function in society.
But she didn't vote. She didn't have any grasp of what was happening politically. She was never told not to, but I think somehow she knew.
Honestly there are ways to disseminate the voting information enough that those who can grasp the vote should.
I have no easy answers though. It's not an easy question
Definitely agree there are no easy answers.
At least this seems like a much better place to have a discussion on it that some other places online.
Edit: I did just saw you first comment got down voted. I think you have a valid point, I don't agree but I wouldn't down vote you for having it and I don't think you should have been.
Yeah, I'm not saying I have all the answers or that I'm not missing something, but the way it stands it's a bad idea. It needs thought, a process developed and guardrails in place.
I will say this. As well. I have a 17 year old extremely intelligent son. He works. He ain't ready to vote. He'll be the first to say it as well.
Ironically that's what makes him grounded enough to have a vote imo, with people out there being so susceptible to propaganda and proud of it too it's worth having more stoic views on it
You laugh but I said the same thing to him. Told him I'd kick his butt if he didn't vote next year. We need guys who actually inquire and argue with those in Authority. Even when that authority is his dad lol.
Hey sometimes I'm wrong and he's right. It happens
oh don't tell me you believe in that debunked your-brain-is-fully-developed-at-25 pseudoscience.
No you rude shit. I believe in the science involved in brain formation, maturity and it's response to nature and nurture
You?
I also believe in the science. That's why I don't believe in the developed-at-25 myth. If you look it up online you can see it's been widely rebuked. Here's an article from the BBC for instance.
Apologies for the rudeness.
The brain development at that age does allow for far more nuanced decision making, but I agree. The brain developed and decays constantly and differing rates, from my limited understanding , but I do believe that PEAK decision making capabilities don't occur until an average age that probably is between 25 and 35. But again that's not basing it solely on ,"brain development". I should have been more precise.
And, water under the bridge
https://www.unicef.ca/sites/default/files/2024-06/UNICEF%20_Canada_Policy_Brief_Bill_S-201_Lowering_the_Voting_Age.pdf
I'm still not convinced about this. I have known many teenagers who are more adept than me at making mature decisions (late 20s). So I think we all mature at different rates. I don't especially believe that there's a magic time in ones 20s where one becomes especially mature. And if there is, it is likely only a couple % higher in maturity points than at other times in one's life.
Still, this magic 25 number appears a lot when people are trying to advocate for removing rights from young adults. Like for instance, saying trans people have to be at least 25 to transition. I'm always skeptical of it.