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.
-
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 10/19
-
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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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’m sure this was killed by bitchy socially conservative sheltering types who freak out about anything that doesn’t fit in their small minded view of morality.
Lemmy is full of those people too, there's a whole thread of them angry that openI might allow NSFW content.
Oh, they must remember the threads discussing finding child pornography in the image generation model training data.
God forbid people have concerns about ethics.
No one forces you to stare at the girl. People see offensive shit every day all over, but society doesn’t conform to all offenses equally, does it? Why is your ethics enforceable, but other people’s aren’t? Why does she have less right to practice her ethical choice to expose her body (assuming by your answer you would have offense)? Why is it more ethical to have others right to view taken away than for you to simply turn your head away? Ethics is very subjective, especially when there is no direct harm to either party.
Are we talking about the same thing? I replied to someone taking about OpenAI, not porn in general. The creation of porn without the consent of the people fed into the program is nothing short of an ethical nightmare, even in cases where said people are pornstars. You're painting me as a repressive for shit I didn't even say.
It looks like you were responding to my comment
“I’m sure this was killed by bitchy socially conservative sheltering types who freak out about anything that doesn’t fit in their small minded view of morality.”
That’s how it showed up. If you were responding to a different comment, my bad, please disregard my comment. Sometimes the line system in Lemmy is a tad hard to follow.
Edit: realize I misread the line scheme and you weren’t responding to me. Sorry.
It is against the law. That means that society, as a whole, has decided that this is immoral.
So that means that its morally okay to kill everyone who looks at me ("No one forces then to look at me!")?
Because ethics are only enforcable through laws and the laws currently enforce "my" ethics in that regard.
Whether that is morally right is an ethical question but would you say the same about a minor (exposing themselves)?
Exactly, so what is the issue with the company having moral concerns about it and shutting it down?
Because seeing a nipple is on par with murder. Not to mention society makes all sorts of terrible shit ethical, like billionaires bribing politicians to subvert the will of the people. My point was ethics is a subjective defense at best. Especially when no harm is perpetrated on either party and nipples being required to be covered was not an ethical standard most of human history. Murder would cause harm to the murdered party. Nipple viewing would only harm a child because they have been taught that nipples are “supposed” to be hidden like a dirty secret. Even though all mammals suckle from them in early life. It’s absolutely silly to make a bare chest being exposed such a big “ethical” deal and people should be questioning this like I did. It only exists due to the puritanical religious idealism pushed on society. It has no basis in reality as a detriment to society.
One question: Would you say the same about getting completely naked in public?
Doesn't necessarily have to do with conservatism. Not everyone wants to be randomly flashed without consent.
Oh the terrors of non-consensual nipples entering your line of sight. The beach must be horrifying for you, unless only women’s nipples require “consent” to be exposed. Social conservatism is the entire reason breasts have to be hidden like dirty sexualized secrets to begin with. It’s silly.
You do not have my consent to display your eyebrows today.
Yes a fair comparison.
Seems like you grew up in a very puritanical place.
Nudity is objectively neutral.