Might Be @ MightBe @lemmy.world

Might be someone you know.

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

52

Joined

2 yr. ago

Again, I would want submissions to focus on the QUALITY of the content instead of WHERE the content is published.

If you feel that an article is factually incorrect, you should present hard evidence to dispute the part that was factually incorrect instead of appealing to authorities, otherwise, who's to say you are only agreeing to articles that are confirming to your own biases?

Let's discuss whether this kind of article should be allowed in the future, since this violates rule 2, it's only very tangentially relevant to politics.

I would like to address your concerns. The audience here is very much US centric, so that even with the current rule change, I don't expect the content and culture here to drastically change overnight. In fact, I would still very much expect US politics to be fairly dominant here in the near future.

And rest assured, we would not want the antagonism here to increase either.

I'll give it my best shot.

I made an alt for this specific reason, among others.

News should be news, I would like this community to focus on political discussions, editorials, and commentaries from a variety of viewpoints, if that makes sense.

And to be frank, I don't think topics like "Trump smells bad" is good political discussion, which is what I would aim to avoid.

Blacklist will be used for the most egregious offenders such as OANN and Epoch Times.

In the future, I would like to implement submission statements to make sure people actually read the articles they are posting here and acknowledge there that what they are posting might be unreliable. I'm a big proponent of using hard facts and evidence to back up all claims regardless of who wrote the article, and this in my opinion should be the standard going forward.

Individual moderators will have their personal opinion, but we will absolutely not conduct our moderation based on our personal stances and will aim to be fair.

In other words, neither, but you are encouraged discuss civilly and to provide sources to back up your claims in your comments.

Everything is up for discussion, while we will still take a hardline against hateful rhetorics. I think the rules can be simplified and made easier to understand and follow, instead of feeling arbitrary.

The top items that I feel should be discussed:

1. Title must match headline. Unnecessary on Lemmy since preview already includes titles, and titles are editable on Lemmy.
2. Restriction on US internal news. I don't think it has overwhelmed this community Lemmy in the same way that it has reddit, so I would like to see the effects of removing this rule.
3. Better definition of what count as opinion articles. I feel that with the removal of !politics@lemmy.world being US only, this should help the two communities complement each other and not step on each other's toes.
4. Reliance on MBFC as an objective measure of objectivity.
5. Roles and involvement of moderators in the community.

One of the first I was going to propose. I feel that MBFC is treated as completely neutral and objective when as with every single source, they have their own biases. I think we should be maintaining our own source blacklist here, instead of relying on a third party with, in my opinion, somewhat unscientific methodologies.

Let's see if we can make this place better.

Let's see if we can make this place better.