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
Your source is talking about de-facto control, not de-jure claims, and doesn't contradict my previous comment on territorial claims at all. It specifically says "under its effective jurisdiction", i.e. de-facto control.
This de-jure claim is based on a constitution written in 1947 by an irredentist fascist that occupied Taiwan and placed it under martial law, against the will of it's people. As I said in other comments, any attempts made by Taiwan since democratisation to move away from that constitution are seen as seditious, and, by PRC law, must be intervened with militarily.
You're conflating an attempt with changing the constitutional claim of continuity over the Chinese empire, with territorial claims over lands outside de-facto PRC. Taiwan could easily simply give up claims over those lands, but it doesn't
The main argument of the PRC is there is one China, the ROC was the government of that China, the PRC succeeded the ROC as the sole legitimate government of all Chinese territory in 1949. Taiwan was part of the Japanese empire (sovereignty given to Japan by Qing China) for the entirety of the ROC's lifetime in China, the ROC given administrative rights to Taiwan at the Treaty of San Francisco.
Taiwan giving up those de-jure territorial claims implies Taiwan is a separate entity, the civil war framework dissolves, since there's no longer a competing government claiming to represent China, just two separate countries, and the succession of states logic breaks.
The moment Taiwan says "we don't claim the mainland anymore, we just claim Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, ...," it's a de facto independence declaration.
This is seen by the PRC as sedition and, again, by law, the PRC must intervene militarily to prevent that.
Again, I specifically mentioned: "territorial claims over lands outside de-facto PRC". Taiwan could maintain its claims over the mainland but give up those over the "Greater China" without implying it's a separate entity. It's not the PRC's business whether Taiwan claims Mongolia.
The current status quo framework is based on the civil war claims, even the slightest deviation from this framework is seen as a red line by the PRC, to the degree that Chen Shui-bian was seen as a diehard independence figure for simply using Taiwan instead of ROC in national day addresses.
Looking at practical implications, where Taiwan hopes to maintain a status quo until the PRC's window of opportunity for annexation fades away, why would Taiwan say "yeah we don't claim the ROC territory, we claim exactly the territories of today's PRC", thereby strengthening the PRCs argument for annexing Taiwan?
They could reduce their claims of "Greater China", for example, to gain international recognition. Quite sure Mongolia and Pakistan would be happy to hear such news. But yeah, I guess to you, China, the country that hasn't carried out any military invasion in 40+ years, has a hair trigger when it comes the invasion of Taiwan somehow?