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.
-
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
It probably never have been financially viable, and that's alright, it's a public service
I'd argue it absolutely is financially viable to society, and moreso than the status quo. It's just less financially profitable for certain commercial interests than the status quo.
The trouble is with government, when you spend money somewhere you generally save it somewhere else, or earn it back elsehwere, and it becomes difficult to associate the spending with the cost savings or profits, such that the spending gets cut. In this case, allowing residents to use public transport for free encourages more people and more business to move to the area, which increases income through taxation. However, after a point someone will look at it and say "Why are we spending so much?" and try to cut it, without acknowledging the subsequent decline after the incentive is removed.
Spend more on trains, spend less on road maintenance, have less traffic then spend less on cops patrolling it.
You hit the nail on the head. The savings would be too distributed between different parts of the government to arrive at a specific number.
I think you're conflating 'financially viable' with 'profitable.'
Something that isn't 'financially viable' doesn't have the funding to stay in business.
Investing in public transportation has a 4:1 ROI in economic impact.
It is, and again I'm speaking from a UK-centric viewpoint, where the public services are privatised to the point where financial viability does have an impact on it, which is unfortunate as it waters the service down for everybody.
The article doesn't make it clear if the transport operation is state owned or privately operated, hopefully it's the former because I agree with the notion that it should be seen as a service with a net benefit rather than a cost on the accounting books.