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
Well like, yeah, it is in fact censorship. I don't think it's a fundamentally bad idea by any stretch, but if it were implemented here in the US it would be instantly abused to dictate the political narrative. Given that's the basis pretty much all american commentators are basing their reactions from, and that chinese citizens are restricted from sharing their impression with the broad internet, it's understandable why the narrative on this topic is that way. The opposing viewpoints are all contained within a country that is extremely ideologically isolationist.
For what it's worth, China isn't particularly better on the issue of abusing policy to dictate the political narrative either. As examples of some of the concerns I've seen expressed by my chinese colleagues about this: nobody is clear (neither on english-language sites or on what chinese news sites said colleagues can access) about what these rules would actually entail - Will they then require university educated people (or certified or etc.) to present broadly accepted established scientific claims? Will those claims be restricted to their relevant field (that seems reasonable, but impossible to police) or is anyone with a university degree allowed to comment? What about people with university degrees, but politically inconvenient opinions about, say, Covid? We're not very far out from a Chinese government that advocated for TCM and Barefoot Doctors, so while it's good the government is working to combat medical disinformation, they also have been historically a source for some of the most damaging misinformation that's still extant in chinese society today.
It's fine to cheer this decision on the face, but dunking on youtubers is easy and by association dismisses the very credible concerns people are raising over this policy.
I don't get this logic of "yeah it's a good idea but if we do it we'll do it wrong." Like okay... Then do it right then?
It's like when someone advocates for higher taxes on the rich and someone responds with "yeah that's great and all but the rich will just find loopholes" like okay. Then close the loopholes as well.
I do not think the concept itself is bad (verifying credentials for people presenting information on social media), and something like it could theoretically be implemented in the US. This system specifically though, as it appears to be being implemented by china, would be utterly unworkable in the US. There's absolutely no infrastructure in place to allow for that sort of broad centralized verification, and constructing some centralized system for credential verification across all US states would be an absolute field day for identity theft.
It's currently unclear how China anticipates handling that requirement too, FWIW. As far as I can find, that centralized resource also does not exist for chinese credentials (possibly one exists for degrees from major universities, but since this is not restricted to just university degrees, it's still an open-ended question). I've got no idea how they plan on verifying claims, and I suspect neither do any major service providers in China right now.
Make it illegal and prosecute those that wind up with an audience. You can't stop everyone giving out bad advice but you can prevent people making it their career and building a large following.
The issues that instantly come to mind: That's fundementally unconstitutional, there is no mechanism for enforcement, there is no agency tasked with that and US LEAs are already beyond the workload they could ever hope to address, very rarely is "more cops" a solution, how do you address people that say things like "wink wink this is not medical advice". This is simply not a problem that can be solved in a single paragraph response. It could possibly be done, but it would be spectacularly non-trivial to implement, even if we were in an environment where giving that kind of authority to fhe current administration seemed like a good idea.
Why's it unconsititutional? Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want.
And there's no agency for it? Then make one.
The exceptions to freedom of speech are extremely specific, aren't trivially described and have not been expanded in more than a century. You can't simply dismiss that constraint because things like libel and active incitement are conditionally established exceptions. This would, under current laws, inarguably be unconstitutional - perhaps an amendment could be passed, but the best route for this would be through the extant libel laws and the civil court.
Sure, more cops is clearly a great solution! But that's not what China is doing, which was the initial premise.
Why does it have to be like libel? Why not death threats? Advocating for an intellectual position on things like medicine can cause harm and should be regulated.
I didn't say that you cunt. Why can it not be like what they did with Alex Jones where he was throwing a bunch of conspiracies around school shootings and parents who had their children murdered started getting harnessed so Alex Jones ended up facing consequences. This isn't "oh so you just want more police. Good."
It doesn't get much more "advocating for more cops as the solution" than saying we should make a new law enforcement agency to solve a lack of enforcement capability. What were you trying to say there, if it wasn't "make a new agency to enforce this law"?
That was a defamation lawsuit - of which libel is a type. The 'harm' done in that case was to the parents of the sandyhook children's reputation, not their physical wellbeing.
Cops aren't the same as say the FDA.
And there is harm when people take misinformed medical advice from people claiming to know better.
The FDA Office of Criminal Investigations, the direct enforcement branch of the FDA, uses bonded LEOs to do the enforcement under their perview. While the majority of actions go through civil proceedings (lawsuits), any investigatory work for those lawsuits is done under the direction of the FDA's federal law enforcement officers (or their contracted representatives). That's how enforcement works in the US. If you want to avoid that, it would require a complete restructuring of the entire US legal system from the ground up.
Yes, but that harm is resolved in civil court unless the person in question is criminally liable, usually through gross negligence because they have something like a duty of care. The Alex Jones case, which you brought up as an example, is not in any way comparable to that.
(edit: for clarity, bonded LEOs are what you think of as a cop, instead of someone like a building inspector who is technically law enforcement but does not have the ability to do things like make an arrest or charge criminal proceedings.)
Why does it need a complete restructuring? Just have an agency who's purpose is investigating these specific crimes and then rely on regular cops to handle perpetrators.
Because in the US, criminal investigations have to be carried out by duly recognized officers of the law (or their designees), outside of some extremely specific exceptions like the UCMJ. This structure is so fundamental to the system that it can be traced back to English common law. There are a handful of outliers: some "government watchdog" groups have limited judicial powers (though I can't actually think of any examples of this right now), the crew of aircraft or ships under US flag have (limited) law enforcement powers while underway and there's the big nebulous complexity of the coastguard's interaction with the civilian legal system.
(An aside: at and below the state level there's some additional fuckery, like for example firefighters in some municipalities are endowed with policing powers while carrying out their duties, and some places have reciprocal LEO certifications for things like mental health first responders, but those are all extremely limited in scope and still rely on those people being considered officers of the peace (or some equivalent designation))
An agency to investigate things like this would require their own dedicated enforcement branch, just like the FDA, USDA, Post Office and even NASA all have (disappointingly the NASA police are just called the "protective services office" and not "space cops". Tragic waste of a good opportunity there). We'd need more cops to staff this hypothetical new agency, and we can't simply "borrow" cops from somewhere else - they're already busier than they can handle, even setting aside jurisdictional complexities and expertise. This is how the system in the US is structured, and to deviate from it we'd have to rework that structure fundamentally.