List of Hard Drives That Need To Be Checked
Rep. Danny Williams
Rep. Justin Humphrey
Rep. Derrick Hildebrant
Rep. Warren Hamilton
Rep. Mark McBride
Rep. John George
Rep. Chris Sneed
Rep. David Hardin
Rep. Ronny Johns
Rep. Josh Cantrell
Rep. Jon Echols
Rep. Marcus McEntire
Rep. Tom Gann
Rep. Cody Maynard
Rep. Kevin West
Rep. Neil Hays
Rep. Rande Worthen
Rep. Brad Boles
Rep. Todd Russ
Rep. Ken Luttrell
Rep. Randy Randleman
Rep. Clay Staires
Rep. Ty Burns
Rep. Rusty Cornwell
Rep. Mark Vancuren
Rep. Eddy Dempsey
Rep. Mike Dobrinski
Rep. Gerrid Kendrix
Rep. Brian Hill
Rep. Dell Kerbs
Rep. Dick Lowe
Rep. Jim Grego
Rep. Kent Peterson
Rep. Kevin McDugle
Rep. Trey Caldwell
Rep. Ellyn Hefner
We don’t allow editorializing headlines, please make it match the original or we’ll have to remove it.
"Why Are Some Republican Lawmakers Hellbent on Preserving Child Marriage?
GOP lawmakers across the U.S. have opposed raising the marriage age, with some arguing child marriage bans would encourage abortion"
terrible take, OP’s title is way better, you should remove your rule instead
You don’t get to make the rules. It’s super simple, editorializing is not allowed.
I go a little easier, giving posters 8+ hours to make the correction, because people do need to sleep and work and so on.
But if they refuse to revert to the original headline, it will be removed.
i get to tell you it’s a stupid, bad rule, and that you should get rid of it. doesn’t matter how simple it is. i recognize i unfortunately have no power over you, all i can do is tell you it’s dumb and hope for the best.
It’s not a stupid rule, posters are welcome to post articles, but they need to keep their opinion out of the headline.
They can add it to the body or as a top level comment, but allowing a headline change would just result in a front page of personal opinions and not actual news.
it’s a stupid rule. the opinions of article authors are no more worthy than the opinions of the people who post the links, and if anyone wants to know what the title is they can just click the link.
and it is literally leading you into a situation where you’d rather enforce some bureaucratic bullshit over raising awareness of lawmakers who voted in favor of child abuse.
Wild how difficult this seems to be to grasp. If you want to editorialize the title c/shitposts is right there!
Bonus - If the opinion was one the disagreed with, they would demand it be removed. 😉
This is why we have the rule, no editorializing. It’s not “No Editorializing, unless we personally agree.”
idk i just have this crazy notion posts shouldn’t be deleted because it contains opinions someone disagrees with. that seems very intolerant and frankly immature to me.
if i just wanted a pile of headlines from mainstream media outlets i’d use an rss feed
Opinions are fine, just not in the headline.
wild how you can’t recognize how stupid the rule is
Wild how you can’t recognize how sensible it is. This isn’t the only community with that requirement.
Count your downvotes and get back to me…
seeing something as commonplace does not make it sensible. thought you’d be smart enough not to make such a fallacious argument
and your downvotes mean nothing to me, i’ve seen what makes you upvote. also, downvotes are disabled on my instance, as they should be on all instances tbh. and as far as i know you may have a hundred sockpuppets. wouldn’t surprise me even a little bit
It’s a basic convention in most news-related communities. In general it tends to favor more grounded and factual conversation on the actual topic of the article, rather than on the OP’s take. This includes debating the choice of words in the headline and the bias it introduces.
What’s wrong with “Why Are Some Republican Lawmakers Hellbent on Preserving Child Marriage?” ? Is it too favorable ? Too unfavorable ? Idk man it seems to just state the point of the article, i don’t think the editorialized title is much better in any objective sense.
You are free of course to create /c/editorialized_news or whatever, which doesn’t enforce this “stupid” rule, and we’ll see how it fares in terms of the quality of discussion.
Why is that bad? Like, legitimately. The original titles are already opinions. They are the opinions of the editors and those that spend millions of dollars to ensure their narratives and bias are favored in the headlines. All the rule does is empower that influence more. Is that the goal? I would hope not. I would hope it’s more about being naive about how editors work narratives through titles.
The article isn’t being changed. Literally just the title. So, I don’t really see the problem in users having the ability to share an article with their own opinion as the title of the post.
I mean, if you want a community that is just “Trump does stupid shit - AGAIN!” [email protected] is right there.
Politics is about News Articles, not personal opinions.
I replied to your other comment. I don’t want that. I think I explained what I meant in my response there. So I’ll end the thread here. Sorry for the double reply initially.
Come on, guys, @[email protected], let’s try to find a compromise instead of just swinging fists. What about a hybrid stance? Put the original headline in parentheses after the opinion. That seems like it could be the best of both worlds.
Or, like I say, put the opinion in the body of the post or as a top level comment. 😉
maybe the title should just be the word “news” to make sure no opinions sneak in
“News” wouldn’t give the context that the original headline does.
the user-supplied headline provides yet more context than the one supplied by the media outlet
the rule value the opinions of mainstream media pundits - which is owned and controlled by the ruling class - over the opinions of fediverse users - who have editorial independence. it’s as simple as that really
The correct way to post it in this group would be:
Headline:
Why Are Some Republican Lawmakers Hellbent on Preserving Child Marriage?
Body:
36 Pedophiles/enablers voted AGAINST a Child Marriage Ban that passed in Oklahoma
List of Hard Drives That Need To Be Checked
Rep. Danny Williams
Rep. Justin Humphrey
Rep. Derrick Hildebrant
Rep. Warren Hamilton
Rep. Mark McBride
Rep. John George
Rep. Chris Sneed
Rep. David Hardin
Rep. Ronny Johns
Rep. Josh Cantrell
Rep. Jon Echols
Rep. Marcus McEntire
Rep. Tom Gann
Rep. Cody Maynard
Rep. Kevin West
Rep. Neil Hays
Rep. Rande Worthen
Rep. Brad Boles
Rep. Todd Russ
Rep. Ken Luttrell
Rep. Randy Randleman
Rep. Clay Staires
Rep. Ty Burns
Rep. Rusty Cornwell
Rep. Mark Vancuren
Rep. Eddy Dempsey
Rep. Mike Dobrinski
Rep. Gerrid Kendrix
Rep. Brian Hill
Rep. Dell Kerbs
Rep. Dick Lowe
Rep. Jim Grego
Rep. Kent Peterson
Rep. Kevin McDugle
Rep. Trey Caldwell
Rep. Ellyn Hefner
the way OP did it was correct, it just broke a stupid, incorrect rule. the correct thing to do is to stop enforcing arbitrary unpopular rules just because you think you know what’s best tbh
like your AI-generated header image says, “good men don’t need rules” - do you need rules, jordan?
And yet, it is well documented you don’t follow your own rules or the rules of the instance, and yet no one seems to do anything.
Why is that, do you think?
https://lemmy.world/post/36621226
The rules are followed fine, except by a bunch of whiners and bad actors who object to any form of moderation.
This is a really awful policy though. It’s only a policy that enforces the language of those in power that control the headlines. This is how we got “Israeli’s murdered by barbaric terrorist attack!” and “Palestinians die after targeted arial strike on Hamas”.
The use of passive or active language depending on who the editor decides to favor. There is not some superior review process for these news organizations articles that ensures consistency. It is quite clearly the opposite. And this type of passive or active language in titles was used to manufacture consent for a genocide.
Currently, “following the rules” is passifying language in favor of pedophiles. That’s the current result of the “rule”. So maybe it needs some rethinking. Because if that’s how it’s working there is definitely a problem.
Which is open for discussion in the comments. Modified headlines would stifle that, because unless you clicked the modified headline, you’d never see the original.
The same could be said for the title of the original article. “The original article title is available in the link”.
The rule is favoring the opinion and bias of the original article and enforcing it on the window in which all people using the sub are deciding which comments or articles to even engage with.
That’s the point of the title in the sub. It’s not “equal” because it can be posted in a comment. We aren’t all reading the sub one link at a time and one comment at a time. We are using titles to decide what to engage with.
So one of these needs to be favored over the other unless we allow user titles to be posted along with article title (which I personally think is a bad solution).
So we are stuck favoring one over the other for the sub title. The opinions and bias of the users of this sub (regulated by the mod team to some degree) or the opinions and bias of the institutions (unregulated by the mod team in anyway. Just flat enforcement).
That’s the point. It’s not users opinions not being available. It’s about the opinions and bias in titles being enforced as the titles in the sub itself.
The rule enforces the opinions of and bias of third party institutions through all titles in this sub over the opinions and bias of the actual users of the sub. The rule doesn’t even allow for mods to use any form of judgement. Which is why you’re stuck here getting downvoted because you’re doing your job and enforcing the rule.
I’m arguing against this form of hard enforcement because I don’t want the mods being put in a position in which they are forced to defend the passive language titles used to normalize a law protecting pedophiles. I know you’re not trying to do that. But, the rule unfortunately, in this situation, is putting you in that position.
So, in my opinion, the rule needs some flexibility at the discretion of the mods. Enforce article titles to a degree. But you mods gotta have some discussion among one another on the flexibility of allowing user titles sometimes. Because it puts you in this awful position of enforcing a title that is passively normalizing pedophiles and being a robot that responds with “those are the rules”.
Hope you understand what I’m saying. This isn’t a criticism of you or any mod personally.
I get it, and I get where it’s coming from.
Fortunately the vast majority of Lemnmy users are smart enough to recognize passive voice and weasel words when they see them and call them out in the comments.
Replacing the original headline, either editorializing or editing, is a form of sanitization and makes it less obvious when news orgs are doing this.
I’ve had times going down the front page where “Oh, no, that CAN’T be a real headline…” then, surprise! It was!
Fair enough. Glad you understand the frustration. Thanks for dealing with my rant. But I figured a better explanation was in order than just “it’s a dumb rule”.
Reddit-ass moderation
Reddit would have just removed it with no warning and no offer to let them correct it. 😉
it was literally impossible to edit titles on reddit. it was a stupid rule there anyways, but good for you for clearing that bar despite the fact that the bar is underground
This is a really weird hill to die on.
what, child abuse? i was abused as a kid so yeah maybe i’m a little weird about it, sorry if that’s the case
That’s a cool straw man you’ve got there, gonna put him out in a field?
huh?
Who are you even helping by enforcing this? The people on the list?
Nothing to do with the content, we don’t allow editorializing in headlines, full stop. The content is immaterial.