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
Because you intrinsically are. It would require more people with investigatory and enforcement powers to staff this hypothetical agency. Not smalltown pigfuckers, sure, but what you're describing is structurally little different from the FBI or ICE. A massive new law enforcement agency like that will need people to do that and those people are called cops.
Those people are not cops. I could right now investigate top youtubers to see if their platforms are being used to spread misinformation without displaying any credentials. And if you paid me to do that I wouldn't be a cop.
(Wait, do you mean the FBI and ICE aren't cops? not nitpicking just genuine uncertainty)
Your investigation would also carry no legal weight and, unless you are extremely careful, would land you in various defamation and harassment lawsuits if you ever tried to act on it. If this hypothetical agency were to do similar, investigate people with no authority, it would invite all kinds of trouble. Not only would it likely be inadmissible in court as it would constitute gross violations of their civil rights, it would absolutely result in the kind of countersuit to which soverign immunity does not apply. This is how people get away with crimes "on a technicality", because there were such gross procedural and jurisdictional errors that the investigation itself is suspect.
I can literally go and do this right now I wouldn't need authority.
But with an actual dedicated team they could collect this evidence and present it to a court for this issue.
Yes, you can go out and look into people's background. No, you can't just go present that to a court and get it accepted. Depending on what it is it might be accepted in a civil suit, but it would be circumstantial at best and most likely you'd be censured for trying to submit hearsay.
Courts and even civil cases just do not work like you are envisioning. Vigilante fact checking isn't a thing, and agencies of the executive are subject to judicial rules just the same as you are.
You don't understand enough about trial law, civil law enforcement or investigatory standards to be justifiably this adamant about this idea. You can't find a magic way to frame this that will let you harass people via the legal system but somehow not make you a cop. This is the reason SLAPP suits almost never win - they're pathetically baseless lawsuits, they just abuse the appeals system to bully people into giving up. You could do that, if you had the money, but you couldn't enforce anything beyond using that mechanism to get your own way.
It's not that I don't understand what you're suggesting, it's that your understanding of the realities surrounding this issue is flat-out wrong and what you're proposing is largely illegal were you to ever act on it.
If you're legally required to have a degree or whatever related to the topic then all you have to do is require social media sites integrate some sort of display that shows the users qualification that they can submit to these sites if they want to use their platform to discuss such topics. Then when you see someone making consistent claims without displaying their credentials you have the evidence right there to deplatform them.
I think we're starting to loop around.