If you’re pre-born, you’re fine, if you’re pre-schooled, you’re fucked. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life, these people aren’t pro-life, they’re killing doctors, what kind of pro-life is that? What, they’ll do everything they can do save a fetus, but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it?
Have you noticed that most of the women who are against abortion are women you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place, man? There's such balance in nature.
They do nothing when kids are killed in mass shootings. They block or repeal regulations meant to prevent irreparable damage to the environment. They gerrymander the shit out of districts to make sure elections go their way, and lie about the results if they lose anyway. They’d rather see women die than let them terminate a non viable pregnancy. They try to criminalize trans people while allowing billionaires to screw over everybody un-checked. They claim to love Jesus while treating migrant children like inhuman pests.
If there are threats against them, they are more than well deserved. They brought it on themselves.
Regarding Rule 6, this seems to say that the same story with a different source is okay. I don’t think this should be the case. The same story regardless of source should not be reposted unless it adds new information.
It’s not meant like that. But the automod won’t leave a message if you use a different source.
The final rules will be collapsed, so you would only see:
rule 6: No duplicate postsIf a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
So what does “a source” mean in this rule? So long as the article text isn’t a 100% copy of a story that’s already been posted (like with AP articles that get reprinted in dozens of papers) we’ll be ok to post it, right?
Getting multiple perspectives on a story is a big part of why I come to forums like these, and I worry that it’s just going to get ugly if we have a situation where you’re removing the NPR article about something because someone posted the Wall Street Journal coverage of it first (or vice versa).
We discourage spamming the same story over and over again, but sometimes different sources bring different perspectives on a story. So it will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
The bot can ofcourse not detect those duplicates, so moderating it will be more difficult.
“moderating it will be more difficult”. So does that mean it is allowed or not? If you “discourage spamming the same story over and over again”, do you mean from the same person, or from everyone? So if ten different people posted the same story from different sources, is that allowed or not? The rules are not clear, and your further explanation still isn’t clear to me.
If it ever comes to a point where the same story get’s spammed to an annoying degree, we will communicate that we won’t accept any more of those posts.
But we probably won’t moderate before that.
We can always alter the rules later if that turns out to be a problem.
I disagree, different perspectives from different reporters almost always add at least some new information and seeing how many outlets are reacting to a story gives me a sense of how “big” the story is. I’d make an exception if the article text is 100% identical because it’s an AP reprint or something, but otherwise I think the mods should leave this alone.
e; apologies for double post, having some site/app instability at the moment
Re #4: Can you clarify if the title should be the same as the page title, the article headline or either? I think either should be acceptable. Especially when the page title can be clickbaity or misrepresent the aritcle, but it’s the one that auto-generates when posting.
As mentioned in rule 4, we will only delete titles that are wrong or incorrect. Maybe we should rephrase that to “misrepresents the article”. Would that work?
I strongly feel I agree with this sentiment, people should be able to fix them if they’re able to, but I don’t know if I would be comfortable with a post getting removed because it used the original article’s clickbaity headline. Like, clickbait-iness is a little subjective, and re-writing a headline well can sometimes be tough if the story’s complex.
Every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Every single word. Anyone who protests against their oppression is labelled a “terrorist” while nearly every act of domestic terror ever committed in U.S. history has been by conservatives.
"nearly every act of domestic terror ever committed in U.S. history has been by conservatives. " This factually true statement should be repeated regularly but for “some reason” the media is afraid to do so.
This is a clearnet site (as well as you being a fucking numpty) so anyone stupid enough to place any kind of order on there deserves to be in jail, if only to remove them from the gene pool.
if people are sharing that shit openly on twitter how are they not getting arrested for it? them having a twitter or not shouldnt even be a question if youre posting that shit.
So… their gonna just level up their normal business model then? Churn out an endless stream of garbage in hopes something sticks then cancel it or ruin it when it somehow does stick?
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.