In my opinion.

It’s fine, but it’s too common in online communities (including Lemmy) and it discourages people from posting their original thoughts or events that they find important and relevant, since something needs to come from a ‘real news source’ or an ‘online article’.

I can make a website right now and call it “The Daily Pragmatist” or some shit and people won’t bat an eye.

Reality also is that many reach conclusions based on titles alone anyhow. I can’t see how it would be worse, since the body of the post is always going to be a tad more accessible than opening a new website. And we see how little people want to work to gather their knowledge, on the whole.

I get removing crappy content, but what about when thoughts are backed up with sources and opinions are relevant to overall discussion?

And separately, what’s up with aversion to ‘non-standard’ forms of expression? I would argue that something like the show ‘The Rehearsal’ by Nathan Fielder, is an equally valid way to deliver real and important news to people. I wouldn’t be alone in this sentiment.

Imo this shit is busted and dumb.

Edit: for those that agree in part or in whole, if you have the bandwidth for it, consider making your own community! Lemmy is still relatively small and your local instance might be even more so. It’s not impossible to get a community going, and if it fails - oh well!

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

    If you want a place to discuss opinions, that’s what comments sections are for.

    People who arbitrarily ban content also arbitrarily ban comments and users.

    But news communities are generally rooted in facts.

    Curated “facts” from hegemonic sources.

    This is one of the worst issues plaguing Lemmy, IMO.

    Not IMO.

    news communities should be for news.

    Whose news? There’s a deep assumption of objectivity here that is completely wrong.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Well… Our points of view are so far apart, I don’t even know where to begin to reconcile them.

      Sourcing, information hygiene, proof, and science are irrefutably central to the way I wish to interact with the world. It should be the bedrock of any healthy online community structure, IMO.

      Places where that’s not enforced are place people just echo what they want to hear, in my experience. Whether its true or not is secondary, as apparently information hygiene is too “heirarchal” and constricting.

      I don’t want that. I don’t want anything to do with the Fediverse if that’s what it becomes, and it sure feels like many users want that.