We’ve had to create a new sidebar rule, we won’t be enacting it retroactively because that just doesn’t seem fair, but going forward:
- 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.
IDK, if this community has any hope of being anywhere near as comprehensive in coverage as the News Subreddits were its going to take some superusers.
A super user is not a spammer.
If you think that 19 is a lot of news articles for the whole planet in a single day, enough that it counts as spam, then my friend have I got news for you :-(
19 isn’t a lot for the planet, but it is a lot for a single user.
We’d rather the front page be representative of what MULTIPLE people think is important, not just one person, otherwise we might as well just turn it over to a bot pulling from the Google News algorithm.
I agree one person can’t properly sample the world stage of news.
if this community has any hope of being anywhere near as comprehensive in coverage as the News Subreddits
I left Reddit on purpose.
I would rather have quality than volume.
I would rather my news feed be diverse than dominated by one or two self-appointed influencers of discourse. (Even if they have good intentions.)
I approve of this rule. Ten articles per person each day is more than enough at this stage, and the threshold for “too much” can always be adjusted as the community grows.
The only reason they might dominate is because they do the posting. Anyone can make a post, if other people aren’t posting it seems silly to penalize the ones who are, spam excluded.
if other people aren’t posting it seems silly to penalize the ones who are
I suppose that’s an easy statement to agree with. However, a sensible rate limit is not a penalty.
I understand your sentiment, but I think u/jordonlund is right.
When someone posts nineteen articles, they’re likely posting everything that they’re seeing, and not even finishing articles. There’s no selection process. They’re not picking good articles, they’re just acting on reflex.
Articles should be posted because a reader actually thought that they were uniquely valuable.
I don’t think the requirements should be so stringent. Anyone with an RSS reader knows you can at least skim hundreds of articles per day. They shouldn’t have to be the best or most valuable, the only hurdle an article must clear is that it is interesting enough that someone wanted to post it. Then it’s up to community voting to sift through and promote the best ones.
I think we’ll just have to recognize that our opinions on this differ. Because i very much don’t want the product of someone skimming hundreds of articles a day. That sounds more like reading a firehose of headlines. I don’t think you can get the kind of nuanced, incisive information that I come to a place like this for.
I get why these mods didn’t like that users posts but this is such a dumb way to to put in a prevention rule. Especially when they even admit it wasn’t spam.
Why artificially limit how much people can interact to get traffic to a community?
Just like if you saw the front page filled only with articles from the same source, seeing the front page filled with posts by the same username gives the impression that someone is pushing an agenda.
I mentioned this myself in a post I made regarding Myanmar, I have a personal angle on that and if it seems like I yammer on too much about Myanmar, feel free to tell me to shut up. :)
I saw different sources but feels more like a lack of others posting issue rather than just someone pushing an agenda
There’s the downvote button, why not let users decide?
This community censors Al Jazeera posts by calling them “duplicates” and leaves up the least anti-Israel post.
I highly doubt it cares about being comprehensive in coverage
Removed by mod
It’s also really obvious when they’re all from the same news source or very closely related ones.
I only post a couple a day at most, but I also try to vary the news sources I’m using, so I’m not just promoting one news organization’s stance.
Even alternating sources, it’s still a reflection of that users opinion of what they feel is important and needs promotion… So, yeah. 19 is a bit much.
I like this change. Quality over quantity.
Removed by mod
19 articles still seems like reasonable usage to me. Spam or abuse would probably be a bit higher than that and likely include off topic and duplicate links.
That was the question I put to the other mods… “Heyyy… we don’t exactly have a rule for this, 19 seems like a lot…”
We collectively decided on 10, but this is all new, it might change!
The prime focus is making sure no single user dominates the front page. How big the “front page” is varies by app though.
Posting a shit ton of full text news articles is gonna get the instance DCMA’d
What is the difference between one person doing it 20 times and 20 different people doing it once?
I didn’t say either was good/better/whatever. Regardless of who’s doing it, if the news forums here just start posting full text articles like crazy, eventually the instance will get smacked down for it.
RIP MICROWAVE 😭
LOL Microwave DOES post a bunch, but not to the point where we get reports on it. Not to where we look at the front page and see:
(username)
(username)
(username)
(username)
(username)
(username)
(username)
(username)All his posts get me to engage a ton. They’re very informative on current medical system issues. I had a gripe with them at one point about being inflammatory but I was wrong, the sources are usually of extremely good quality.
Thanks for the recognition, @flooppoolf@lemmy.world 😊
Pretty sure they mean nekandro.
Posting full articles is probably not great, but the number of posts per time unit probably shouldn’t be limited unless it’s causing a technical issue. It’s news content. That’s why we’re subscribed.
Maybe poster is out of work right now, following the news closely, posting what seems important. Surely 10-100 important news items happen each day.
In my opinion the volume of posts isn’t the problem, but copy pasting full text from a site is the issue.
Copy/pasting the full text of an article breaks the rules at the lemmy.world level, that’s already been accounted for in the Sidebar rules.
I dunno. I personally have no problem with someone just copying what’s posted on Reddit here.
At least until there’s more engagement.
Removed by mod
As long as they are getting them from credible sources I don’t see no harm but actually a huge plus for the community. This community is one of the most successful transition-from-you-know-where and huge part of that is thanks to few who posts.
Let’s see if we can make this place better.
“Heroes are not giant statues framed against a red sky, they are people who say ‘this is my community and it’s my responsibility to make it better.’” - Tom McCall - Oregon Governor 1967 to 1975.
Welcome!
Is this about that account called “nonaturalgas” or something? Anyway somehow that one always felt off . So good job.
Correction: it’s name was naturalgasbad and he was also banned. Some other poster stated he posted several pro China articles a day.
No, they only posted twice that I’m aware of.
This one isn’t about the quality of the links, the links themselves appear to be fine, it’s just the sheer volume.
To give you some idea, I moderate some smaller communities and I personally feel like I’m dominating the conversation if I post more than 3 links in a day…
Roll over to World News and I see 19… 🙄
Naturalgas posts about 5-10 pro-China pieces a day.
Honestly I feel like Nekandro is just their alt account , the types of posts felt too similar.
They definitely do seem to push certain agendas based on the topics. I already keep an eye on him too, especially since he’s on Lemmy.ml which is just Lemmygrad in disguise.
Naturalgas posts about 5-10 pro-China pieces a day.
Naturalgasbad was the one I meant earlier. I saw he was banned yesterday, that’s why I checked whether this was about him.
He was banned for an entirely different reason.
They told me they were banned because they kept citing the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart and the mods here preferred the Media Bias Fact Check ratings.
Please don’t assume their gender. This is basic etiquette.
Please don’t assume their level of offence at being presumed to be a he. This is basic etiquette.
It’s just a way for you to try to feel morally superior and direct the attention towards you
They told me what they preferred, but you are right that I assumed they would be offended. My bad.
They were banned because after they were banned for abusing the report feature, they continued arguing with me through a series of PMs when they were told to stop arguing with a mod, repeatedly.
The ban increased from 3 days for abusing reports, to 7 days for arguing, then 30 for not stopping, then finally a permaban.
They were warned and given every opportunity to stop.
They’re telling me they were reporting articles which didn’t match the community’s policy on reliability according to MBFC credibility crating and that the moderator in question refused to respond constructively.
Edit: I don’t have the DMs from either side, which might help tell the story lol
They were reporting sites like the Washington Post which is a newspaper of record with a high credibility rating.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/
When the links they posted which were removed were from the South China Morning Post.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/south-china-morning-post/
Basically they wanted to post Chinese propaganda and got butthurt that they weren’t allowed to.
SCMP is considered pretty reliable by most Western media outlets. It’s still used as a source for Reuters news wires and Associated Press articles. It’s still banned in mainland China for being too “edgy” or whatever, and the Hong Kong government still bars them from many events for “security reasons.” It’s still used by the Canadian Armed Forces College in their news feed SOMNIA. It’s used by Bloomberg, which many financial folks over on State Street use as a source to trade billions of dollars on.
Their op-eds are more, well, opinionated and editorialized than in the past, but anybody submitting op-eds to a news community needs to reconsider doing so in the first place. If you evaluated WaPo or the NYT solely off of their op-eds, you’d think you were reading a rag like the Daily Mail.
If Reuters, Associated Press, Bloomberg, and the Canadian Armed Forces rely on SCMP, what makes the moderators of this community think they know better?
Now you have to post only articles that mods like?
And don’t you dare question them!
Because a) it was reported as a suspicious source and b) upon examination was found to be “Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing”.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/south-china-morning-post/
That is not an issue other sites that we do allow have. The decision has been made. It’s not up for debate.
When the links were removed, the user was not banned and simply told to choose better sources. They went on a rampage reporting posts from known reliable sources resulting in a 3 day ban from a separate mod for abusing the report feature.
All of this was explained to the banned user who kept arguing and arguing in PMs and was told to stop, which resulted in increasing their bans over and over as they persisted until they were finally permanently banned.
In the end, their behavior in PMs showed the banning was appropriate. You don’t get anywhere arguing with mods.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, the person taking over the front page was some tankie from hexbear, post after post of “Communism good, Democrats are Right Wing” etc. etc. etc.
The articles posted may be from a variety of sources, but their selection by the same person represents a singular point of view.
A community serving 33,000 members shouldn’t fall victim to a singular point of view.
Or, in lighter terms “Hey, give somebody else the chance to post…”
Hey, give somebody else the chance to post
They do have a chance. 🤷♂️
But I hear you on the point-of-view argument. 👍
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Are you sure it wasn’t a bot?
It didn’t look like a bot, and it wasn’t technically spam.
