- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/29061644
We’ve done it, we got rid of another soulless right wing politician!
Peter Dutton first made his party lose this election and now also lost his own seat much like Pierre Pullover
We’ve still got a government that green-lit new coal power plants in it’s last term, screwed over the Aboriginal community with a poorly run referendum, and still doesn’t give a shit about climate change, but baby steps hey.
You must log in or register to comment.
Done. Only because I respect you.
It doesn’t make sense that rule. But you’ll disagree anyway and there’s never a chance of winning a mod argument anyway.
The article headline you want is pointless and meaningless to the 99% of the world who visits this.
Peter Dutton to leave Coalition leaderless, conceding he has lost his seat of Dickson
I added context and a little bit of juice to it so it would make for a better headline for non-Australians. Did I add some anti Trump sentiment? Sure. Did that misconstrue the content of the article? No.
I understand the current rule makes it easy to mod the place, but it also means you don’t let the OP add context for Lemmy. The rule should be: you can’t misconstrue the content of the article.
Anyway, I appreciate all you mods do and I respect the rules that are in place.
Thanks @kingofras@lemmy.world ! I know the rules are a pain, but really it helps prevent shitposting. Imagine coming into a community and just seeing variations on “xxx is a dumbass/shithead/etc. etc.” all the way down. :)
I’m curious what your headline orginally was
I disagree.
Not modifying headings is a fairly universal rule.
Making it “easier to mod” is an understatement. If you let people “adapt titles to be more suitable for lemmy” or whatever you did, then you’ll spend all day having arguments about what adoptions are appropriate. It’s unworkable with volunteer mods.
It’s so pathetic that the top comment chain is discussing this pedantic issue instead of the actual article. Thank god for this moderation or my experience may have been slightly degraded.
It’s a pretty fundamental aspect of content aggregators. If posters editorialise the articles they post it becomes an echochamber for a very confined range of opinions.
Counterpoint. I posted an article from the Australian national broadcaster. They have their flaws but they aint breitbart.
While I sensationalised the title and added my 2 cents in the original OP I cross posted to this community, I linked to a nice source and created a more world context friendly title, yet far from disingenuous click bait.
The upvotes and the comments are largely based on that.
What this rule is currently accomplishing:
- people will just post sensationalist sources with clickbaity titles and questionable journalism
- or people will create sensationalist titles for neutral higher quality sources and then the top comment is always going to be about this level of virtue signalling.
What’s the point of a community if these are the rules? You’re asking for bad sources and at best or you’re just a comment section provider for legacy media.
Why has everyone started saying “counterpoint” all of a sudden. Every comment is a counterpoint.
Counterpoint. Hopefully people aren’t idiots that upvote sensational headlines.
Counterpoint. Everything I already said.
Counterpoint. You could make your own community where people sensationalise headlines.
