People like collecting things.

h

Good for them. Bears are lovely.

awwww nuggets

Annnnnd… It’s a migraine

You’ve been chosen. Socialize these kittens well and they will be some of the best cats of all time.

We also require hourly updates

Hey don’t be rude. That was half the US annual pixel budget in 1966. That was enough pixels to send a man to the moon.

I’d like my partners knees to work again so they can do the things they like as they age, like riding bikes or hiking.

What the fuck even is this trying to say?

This and then the new about regrowing teeth. Its a very exciting time in medicine.

So right now you manually scrub to enforce the policies? Oof. Brother, we can definitely build some basic moderation bots which could help with that.

Well a few thoughts…

Video as format has been a standard since the 1950s. You might not prefer it, but as cameras became so cheap, it became ubiquitous. Whether we like it or not is secondary to whether or not it’s actually journalistic.

Now that can spiral a bit out of control in the modern media landscape where so much of media is derivative, and even more increasingly, derivative of derivative. For example, Hasans content falls into this bucket, where they are doing news and media analysis. They’re commenting on and criticism other forms of media which themselves are already secondary sources. Or even further they’re critiquing a critique of a critique and on and on. So as hollow as that might seem, it’s actually how discourse has always occured. Its a back and forth volley of critiques and points.

How far into c/pol will I have to dig to find an article where it’s actually just an embedded video in an “article”, where the entirety of the article is the headline and the embedded video, which is actually a YouTube link?

I appreciate the points about the balance of effort regarding moderation but the point which you aren’t engaging with is that media and communication have adapted but the moderation approaches haven’t. And that creates a kind of implicit bias which can and does allow for a form of editorial manipulation of content. It bakes it into the structure of the community.

This is why communities like World and Politics require links to news articles that have some form of editorial oversight.

I completely support this and always have, but we exist in a landscape of completely changing conditions. Dropsite news now has a far stronger and more reliable commitment to the truth and to their own editorial policies than CNN. And I think they (dropsite) use a software for publication which you’ve decided makes them a blog, they get put on the naughty list, whereas several legacy media companies have become outright state propaganda outlets (CNN, fox, anything the Ellisons get their fingers on…). The result of the moderation policy which is effectively that anything built in new media isn’t allowed, is that only legacy sources get regarded as “news” , even if they don’t even follow their own editorial policies or have rewritten them to be appease a figurehead like Trump

The point is that a platform, or a medium, or the presence of an editorial policy isn’t sufficient to decide if something is news or isn’t news. For something to be news it actually has to have an editorial policy and engage with that policy. Being legacy media doesn’t immediately qualify to that standard and but being new media doesn’t preclude it either.

Take the recent hit piece on Platner in the NYT. It would meet the qualifications for c/politics. But it wouldn’t meet NYTs own editorial standards of journalism were they to actually enforce them.

I don’t want to disregard or ignore the labor of moderation and yes rules need to be sweeping and evenly applied. But it’s also clear that the current policy is anachronistic at best. Probably, as a community, message boards like Lemmy need to be thinking more broadly about how community rules are implemented and applied. Something like a red-yellow-green list for disapproved, pending, and ‘approved’ sources. And we’ve had that conversation before, about not wanting to maintain an approved list. But it’s 2026. It’s not out of reach where something could be built into a community where the community it’s self could maintain the list via voting.

I’m not bringing this up to badger, but I want to engage the point that the current moderation policies don’t effectively select for news content which is factual and consistent without the an editorial standard, but rather for what has traditionally been identified as legacy media based on format, and that more broadly, a format based approach will always suffer this kind of failing.

Looking at you @jordanlund@lemmy.world. Video content isn’t just a legitimate and primary source of political news, it’s become the primary format for political news since before 2016. Not allowing it introduces a silly form of institutuional editorial bias. AND SPEAKING OF EDITORIAL BIAS, if a print media platform has an editorial board it should be an acceptable source, regardless if they are powered by WordPress, ghost, geocities or any other platform. Just because a company self-hosts their content it doesn’t make it any more legitimate than if a outlet uses an existing piece of software like substack to serve their content. The software shouldn’t be a factor in what counts as journalistic content, it should be whether or not they engage in principaled journalism and maintain an editorial board to reflect that.

Not allowing interviews with candidates and elected officials or other video forms of content is a silly rule.

I remember when this used to get printed on fruit of the looms

If we’re going to have to nationalize these companies anyways id far prefer socialism over fascism to be the mechanism.

Whats the opposite of liminal space…

I eat pieces of floof like you for breakfast

I was at a bar where some marketing orangutans were discussing that the forefront of marketing was tricking chatbots into promoting your product or service via BS websites.

Cooked. Entirely cooked.