32·
1 day agoBlogs, including Substack, are not allowed.
- 1 Post
- 26 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: July 30th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Blog posts, including Substack, are not allowed.
Opinions are fine, just not in the headline.
If it broke a rule, it’s not correct. 😉
I’m being generous giving them time to fix it, not all mods do that.
The correct way to post it in this group would be:
Headline:
Why Are Some Republican Lawmakers Hellbent on Preserving Child Marriage?
Body:
36 Pedophiles/enablers voted AGAINST a Child Marriage Ban that passed in Oklahoma
List of Hard Drives That Need To Be Checked
Rep. Danny Williams
Rep. Justin Humphrey
Rep. Derrick Hildebrant
Rep. Warren Hamilton
Rep. Mark McBride
Rep. John George
Rep. Chris Sneed
Rep. David Hardin
Rep. Ronny Johns
Rep. Josh Cantrell
Rep. Jon Echols
Rep. Marcus McEntire
Rep. Tom Gann
Rep. Cody Maynard
Rep. Kevin West
Rep. Neil Hays
Rep. Rande Worthen
Rep. Brad Boles
Rep. Todd Russ
Rep. Ken Luttrell
Rep. Randy Randleman
Rep. Clay Staires
Rep. Ty Burns
Rep. Rusty Cornwell
Rep. Mark Vancuren
Rep. Eddy Dempsey
Rep. Mike Dobrinski
Rep. Gerrid Kendrix
Rep. Brian Hill
Rep. Dell Kerbs
Rep. Dick Lowe
Rep. Jim Grego
Rep. Kent Peterson
Rep. Kevin McDugle
Rep. Trey Caldwell
Rep. Ellyn Hefner
Nothing to do with the content, we don’t allow editorializing in headlines, full stop. The content is immaterial.
I get it, and I get where it’s coming from.
Fortunately the vast majority of Lemmy users are smart enough to recognize passive voice and weasel words when they see them and call them out in the comments.
Replacing the original headline, either editorializing or editing, is a form of sanitization and makes it less obvious when news orgs are doing this.
I’ve had times going down the front page where “Oh, no, that CAN’T be a real headline…” then, surprise! It was!
Thayer Amendment - 1866:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Can-a-Living-Person-Appear-on-US-Currency
“The Thayer Amendment: This 1866 law prohibited the use of the image of any living person on “the bonds, securities, notes, or postal currency of the United States.” It was an outgrowth of a silly act of vanity committed by Treasury Department official Spencer Clark, who decided to put himself on banknotes intended to honor explorer William Clark, of Lewis and Clark fame. The congressional bill authorizing the creation of the note only specified that it should honor “Clark,” and so Spencer Clark decided to memorialize himself.”
I didn’t know the history on that, that’s hilarious that it was passed as a “fuck you, in particular!” for one guy!
Wild how you can’t recognize how sensible it is. This isn’t the only community with that requirement.
Count your downvotes and get back to me…
“News” wouldn’t give the context that the original headline does.
This was the one that killed me… “Who am I? Where am I? Why am I here?”
Which is open for discussion in the comments. Modified headlines would stifle that, because unless you clicked the modified headline, you’d never see the original.
I mean, if you want a community that is just “Trump does stupid shit - AGAIN!” !politicalmemes@lemmy.world is right there.
Politics is about News Articles, not personal opinions.
The rules are followed fine, except by a bunch of whiners and bad actors who object to any form of moderation.
Bonus - If the opinion was one they disagreed with, they would demand it be removed. 😉
This is why we have the rule, no editorializing. It’s not “No Editorializing, unless we personally agree.”
Or, like I say, put the opinion in the body of the post or as a top level comment. 😉
It’s not a stupid rule, posters are welcome to post articles, but they need to keep their opinion out of the headline.
They can add it to the body or as a top level comment, but allowing a headline change would just result in a front page of personal opinions and not actual news.
Reddit would have just removed it with no warning and no offer to let them correct it. 😉
You don’t get to make the rules. It’s super simple, editorializing is not allowed.
I go a little easier, giving posters 8+ hours to make the correction, because people do need to sleep and work and so on.
But if they refuse to revert to the original headline, it will be removed.
I like Thom Hartmann, but there’s a difference between a court for one tiny town saying corporations can vote in municipal elections in that one town and “ZOMG! Corporations can vote in Delaware!”
Some significant problems:
You have to be 18 to vote, if “corporations are people”, wouldn’t that eliminate any corporation founded in the last 17 years?
How would “a corporation” register to vote in the first place?
How would “a corporation” cast a vote?
If it falls to the CEO to register and vote for the company, how is that not double voting?
If the CEO is not a resident of that town, how is that a legal vote?
Too many flaws in this story that Hartmann fails to address…