FriendOfDeSoto

The people who fact check news for a living are journalists. They exist on a spectrum from dubious to trustworthy. You'll have you find some that you like.

While it is possible today to check a lot of stuff yourself online, you can't do it all. And if you are, you already are doing a journalist's job.

I was looking for something similar late last year. I dare say there is no good and FOSS solution right now on Android.

Is lemmy.world anti-humanity for banning anti-Zionists?

The quick answer is: probably no. You claim this is the case, provide no receipts, and most importantly don't place these terms into enough context. And context matters.

I don't know if you're right. You might be. I'm not excluding that possibility.

No instance is under any obligation to tolerate all opinions. Other admins may defederate, users may move away and block. All moderation decisions are shit. It's much easier to have principles than to apply them equally everywhere and without fail.

If they have indeed chosen to err on the side of what I'm going to call something like antisemitic caution and remove stuff more broadly than you are comfortable with, it's not just a question of values. It's could also be a reflection of their experience with this topic, the resulting workload, and lack of moderation manpower. It's much easier to ban all boobs than having to differentiate with each post if they're breastfeeding or not, to put this in the context of past moderation problems. Facebook isn't opposed to breastfeeding as a function to suckle our offspring but as the proprietors of their platform they can ban all boob related posts. And while this is of course within the realm of apples to oranges comparisons, I don't think it's justified to leap to the conclusion you did based on moderation decisions alone.

From the way you phrased that, I suspect you already have a opinion and you're not looking for a reasonable debate. New account also just for this one. Thank you for rage baiting with us today.

They don't wake up one morning and yell small government. The more liberal social frog inside of you will also get boiled eventually by imperceptible temperature changes in the water over a long time. Conservative thinking isn't generally synonymous with xenophobia. It's more about low taxes, no handouts to anyone, tough on crime, that sort of thing. The xenophobia aspect is a perversion of that, which sadly isn't uncommon but not a forgone conclusion generally speaking. The fact that the MAGAs have made this synonymous with conservative thinking in the US speaks to the success of their movement built on fear, lies, hate, and generations worth of people failed by their education system.

Many reasons. The older one gets, the more stuff if not wealth one has acquired, the more one stands to lose. That has most people make a turn for conservative viewpoints if they weren't there already.

Also, as the Peter Principle in the workplace (I paraphrase: everybody gets eventually promoted to a position they are not qualified to do well) old people get to an age where they overestimate their worldly knowledge.

Getting old is shit. Your joints hurt, hair grows out of weird spots, people around you move to farms upstate. Things you loved from when you were crisp and shiny get swept by the wayside by progress. You have a lot more to complain about now because you also have more time for it. And you wait an awful lot at doctor's clinics.

Not all people do all of these things all the time but there average person will tick at least two of these broad boxes. There is nothing you can do really. Listen but don't take to heart the crap. I draw a line at right-wing politics and hurtful -isms. If my parents didn't cross into that territory I turned my head into an extractor fan.

When you were little, they wiped shit out of your ass crack and worried about you when you were sick. As a bonus they now get you annoy you. The circle of life.

I get it, you're okay with it. And I would allow then to continue funding it if their environmental conscience demanded it. And if they sailed there or even flew economy I'd still allow them to pull a trigger themselves. But I think overall this idea that rich and most likely Caucasian asshole money is required to keep conservation projects in Africa going smacks of a school of post colonial thinking that I don't subscribe to. Africans are not solely motivated by asshole money to preserve their ecosystems.

As I said, I agree with you. As another commenter said, big tobacco lied and got caught and punished. Big booze hasn't risen to quite that level. Additionally and unfortunately, alcoholics and gambling addicts are probably a relatively small part of the population and less likely to vote. And politics is a numbers game. We live in a relatively fucked up world. Where convicted sexual assaulters can still be president. Where the only person convicted from a pedophile gang is a woman. And where you need to be stronger than most of us to not fall off the wagon. But you can translate this justified anger into political change. This must be an issue that has an action group in politics somewhere, which you could seek out and support.

How is that legal?

Those considerations are always a trade-off. How much government should interfere with an industry, especially one that's been around since we monkeys climbed down from the trees? There isn't just the plight of alcoholics to consider. An advertisement ban would affect business and jobs. It would take a considerable chunk out of the advertising market that when gone world affect media, an already struggling industry. And AA doesn't quite have the deep pockets for lobbying. It's legal because it's complicated, not because it's just.

I happen to agree with you here; ads for alcohol should be banned along with those for any sort of gambling and prescription medication while I'm at it. This "drink responsibly" campaign is an effort to make it harder for lawmakers to decide. I'm reminded of that Soviet Union quote and i'm paraphrasing: we know that they know that we know that they know they're lying yet the lying continues.

One day at a time.

Hunting is part of conservation efforts. Hunting tourism is not necessary. Rich assholes flying around the world in private jets just at that they can shoot at a different type of animal than at home is questionable.

And I know they weren't hunting elephants. It's just if I were charged by a herd of elephants and I happened to hold a rifle in my hand, I'd probably be tempted to make use of it in self defense. And the animals could have hurt themselves while acting in self defense from their POV as well.

Keep in mind that you are talking about a German supermarket chain and you want to protest a company headquartered in Israel. Their reaction may lack rationality.

Do what you think is right. Just be aware of the possible consequences.

Unnecessary or annoying are perhaps not the standard to judge this by. I think legally you could be in trouble. Inside your local supermarket isn't the place for a protest. Trying to dissuade customers from buying certain products by tempering with the merchandise, even if it's just a post it note, will at the very least get you barred from shopping there and at worst a day in court. If you are unlucky, this has the potential to be a decision you'll rue.

Look at what kind of protest is allowed where you are. Because the rules aren't universal. But holding a placard on the public space in front of the store may be the safer option.