If an article hasnβt cited any sources, then, imo, it isnβt news
News are those sources for a lot of situations. Someone has to create the primary source at the point of something happening or existing. That's a news article. This can later be cited by somebody else "As reported by Reuters at xyz...". There exist other sources of course, which are, kinda, The Newsβ’οΈ in their respective areas of events. Scientific findings usually have published works as their primary source. Computer vulnerabilities use CWEs or something equivalent once made public.
What source could a reporter sitting on a street in a civil unrest cite? Signed, ID-verified, named and double-checked-against-birth-certificate statements from people around him?
Yeah it's not a situation I can see an easy solution for, especially because, as you say, people randomly going out and shooting CEOs isn't going to solve the problem either, but at the same time other attempts have also failed leaving people desperate and willing to do desperate acts.
Well as for the first part, I suspect the admin(s) had to talk to each other and the mods first? They probably don't all have bat-signal and instead had to sent emails or messages around and wait for replies, takes a few days? I mean this shooting happened five days ago, not even a week. Would you pay for the 24/7 social media marketing team on call to handle such cases in 1-3 hours like for some larger companies? I doubt it, no?
βFreedomβ is a concept, itβs neither something unique to America nor is it reliant on any document.
Funny how words change when they are put together with other words.
"Freedom" != "Freedom of Speech"
The second is a specific thing, it just happens to have "freedom" in its name. Much like Michael Jackson and Michael Scott are different people, despite both having "Michael" in the name, and the former is not an amalgamation of Michael Scott and Janet Jackson, either! It's shocking, I know!
Freedom of Speech's meaning cannot be derived from the individual meanings of the words "freedom", "of" or "speech", not without having exterior knowledge as to the process of how it was created. It's almost as if, and hold on to your hats here this is wild, it's a name for something, not an inherent concept in itself. You even clearly have used this concept before, as you seem to be indirectly aware that Freedom Of Speech and Freedom Of The Press are different things, and surprisingly the "Freedom" part in both means wildly different things (not actually sure whether you are aware of that second part, but it's rather crucial to how they work).
Now, could you maybe say that in hindsight it turned out to be a bad name since the concept it signifies neither related to freedom or speech in their bare meanings? Sure. Take that up with the Naming Authority, second floor, right walkway, sixth door on the left.
As I understand it, unless you have lawyers on retainer you can't really make a good call when the second part is okay and when it isn't. What is feels-wise a "call to violence" and what is legally a Call To Violenceβ’οΈdoes not always match up. Hence most moderation inherently overshoots massively and casts an extremely wide net, for legal protection.
It's an interesting combination, too. In very devolved industrial countries like the US, people are both more readily violent and the rich have successfully told the poor that the very poor are a big part of their problem.
The one who βmisinterpretedβ the rules is a mod of pretty much all the main subs on world.
That's because few want to. I've been asked myself whether I want to mod multiple communities because the current mod isn't active, and some of those aren't even small.
(edit: Fair enough, did not even know it's public what somebody mods - in that case however you should be inherently aware of how naturally moderating communities is something extremely few people would want to do, and how this naturally results in very few users moderating vast swathes of communities)
Funny, because these laws are based in large parts on normal citizens being attacked and called to be murdered, and hence laws were passed to make such things illegal. Sadly, and this might surprise you, underneath the CEO reptiloid skin is a human body, and hence they are subject to those very same laws.
It's also important to keep in mind that you need to be more specific in your calls: CEO is a title that even people in smallest companis can have. We all intuitively know that we mean the bad shitheads when we say "CEO" in disgust, but there are small people CEOs that would not want to be called on to be murdered just because we think ACAB (All CEOs Are Bastards). Likewise even billionaires - if very rarely and naturally you don't hear about that since they keep a low profile - can have positive effects, like the couple that had a big hand in how reforestation in Scotland has actually succeeded far faster than any other country has managed, simply by being up all the land from the private owners in one giant swoop. Are billionaires worth keeping around, conceptually? No, but maybe these come last? π€·
Carighan Maconar @ Carighan @lemmy.world Posts 120Comments 2,870Joined 2 yr. ago
I mean, sure Arch is flexible. All good footguns can mutilate me in a bunch of different ways.