A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
There should never have been such a ban preventing Ukraine from defending themselves. Even if you believe it made sense, at the latest it should have been lifted the day we confirmed Russia was using Iranian weapons in Ukraine.
It should have been lifted when it was clear it didn't work. I'm convinced that it was a negotiating position, designed to prevent Russia from escalating.
Either that, or it was a way to build a wide alliance to support Ukraine (with some countries being more eager and some more hesitant to help).
Regardless, it was a half measure and should be abandoned rather sooner than later.
Wait, why?
I can maybe understand taking action against Iran on those grounds, but why would it matter with respect to Russia whether Russia is using Iranian-origin or Russian-origin or North Korean-origin or whatever weapons?
At that point Russia is using foreign weapons in a country they invaded. Therefore there is absolutely no reason left Ukraine should be banned from using foreign weapons against the country invading them.
I don't think that the prohibition was put in place because people wanted to deter use of foreign weapons. If that had been the aim, I think that would have been a clearly-drawn red line well in advance. That'd need to be the case, for something to act as a deterrent; someone has to have a cause-and-effect put before them to make them think twice about doing something.
I think it was put in place because people wanted to limit the scope of the conflict so far as was possible. As long as Russia isn't exploiting it, the conflict can be kept out of some of the region.