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
I do personally dislike the wsws but there is nothing arguable about the headline here, it is publicly accessible information. I will question western sources when they make unsupported claims about geopoltical adversaries, as much as I'll question state propaganda from another country when doing the same (such as Russia claiming genocide of Russians in Eastern Ukraine for example).
Your claim was, "So you dismiss the content just because you dislike the source?", and my retort was that people in your camp, that is the ml instance and the other instances from the triad, also do the same because they disregard UN or Reuters sourced info on the basis of sumply being bourgeois.
If you personally don't do that, then the argument doesn5apply to you and you can ignore it
Hey, aren't you the same person complaining about red herring on another comment thread? Instead of following your logic of answering with the Wikipedia list of logical fallacies, I'll answer to your point:
Tankies like me don't generally refuse all information coming from UN or Reuters on the basis of being bourgeois. If Reuters reports on domestic events in western nations with evidence, that's generally trustworthy. When it comes to geopolitical topics, the thing changes from "journalistic reporting of easily provable stuff" to "geopolitically charged claims without serious journalistic work", and that's when tankies like me are careful of western sources.
If you believe otherwise, you can bring me some examples instead of generally referring to something tankies do that I don't think we do
I think you should go look at that link again.
Right, so only taking the points that they agree with you on.
Here's one:
https://lemmy.world/comment/20878099
Here's another doing this when asked to cite the UN or Reuters as a neutral source:
https://lemmy.world/comment/19851916
The Wikipedia list of logical fallacies was a meme exaggeration. It's a trope that edgy redditors will answer to serious comments by discarding their content according to one of the fallacies in the Wikipedia list. But sure, I'll answer to you accordingly: fallacy fallacy. Even if my comment were a fallacy (which I disagree), that's irrelevant because a logical fallacy can still be true. How about you answer to the content of the comment then, and not to a logical structure.
Regarding the other stuff about western sources and tankies, my claim was this:
And you bring me one link about Venezuela and one link about DPRK, the former including links to western "Freedom Burger Eagle association" type organizations, not even to journalistic or UN claims. This seems to align very well with what I claimed.
A logical fallacy can be true yes but when it's things like red herrings and ignoratio elenchis that don't contribute to the discussion, they don't need to be brought up. If you actually looked at that link that I provided instead of just outright dismissing it because it's 'edgy' or what not, you'd see examples there of how certain arguments don't contribute to the discussion, only muddying conversation.
Right, so you're you're doing the very thing you were questioning that commenter of doing: Disregarding the source instead of the content.
Fwiw, I'm not saying it's wrong to do that, I'm only showing you the contradiction in your claims.