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.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
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
I am not in any way going to defend what was done to Julian Assange, because it was abhorrent.
But, based on what he's done in the past, I'm guessing 'everything' will be far more Biden-focused than Trump-focused.
It is fair to remember, however, that his biggest bombshells were from the Iraq war, which was a decidedly Republican endeavor. But I do agree that he looked more and more like a Russian asset as time went on.
Those bombshells didn't end the war.
His leak during the 2016 election changed the course of American history, and was directly coordinated with Russia. That was far more impactful.
That's more a comment on how die-hard committed the political class is to perpetual war than anything else.
Also, while I don't appreciate Trump being elected... the DNC seems committed to running some of the worst candidates they can find - the fact that there was information that damaging to Clinton that didn't come out in the primaries is the part we should be mad at.
I think we should still be mad at foreign adversary nations colluding with one of our politcal parties and a not at all impartial "whistleblower" to turn the tide of a presidential election.
The emails themselves were barely relevant at all politically. Out of some 30k of them, 3 were found to be inappropriately controlled. Thats hardly an earth shattering discovery.
The spectacle that Assange, the GOP and Russia manufactured was the issue. It was a coordinated and targeted attack on our democracy, and he deserves to be derided for his outsized part in it.
To be clear, I think Assange definitely behaves as a russian asset - but democrats will do anything except admit that their candidates are awful. Leaks as mundane as the 2016 ones were capitalised on by Trump, of course - but it still shouldn't have made a difference, and the race wasn't as close as it was due to wikileaks.
Trying to motivate an increasingly disengaged and disappointed electorate by being the lesser of two evils simply isn't good enough - and 'useful idiots' like Assange (although acting recklessly and causing damage) aren't the reason Hillary lost, or that Trump has support.
If I had dirt on someone that speculated about drone killing me, I would have no problem releasing that dirt. WikiLeaks has never had to retract a story or cables because of bad information, even the DNC couldn't refute the authenticity of the DNC cables.
Except, as you would see in the link I pasted, Wikileaks turned down leaks on the Russian government but smeared Hillary.
"America treated Assange badly" is not an excuse there. You can't claim it was just hating the U.S. and do you really think that's how Wikileaks should operate?
Clinton shouldn't have gone after the people that exposed their corruption.
How does that justify not exposing Russia's corruption?
You mean like these?
You clearly didn't read the article I pasted.
Maybe read it and come back to me.
The man has every reason to hate the USA. Helping getting Trump to power would surely be some sweet revenge, since another Trump presidency will be undoubtely be divisive and harmful
That really is not an excuse for his relationship with Russia.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/
It sounds a lot less like it would be revenge a lot more like it would be marching orders he would be happy to comply with.
The enemy of my enemy is a short-term ally, that might be how he thinks, who knows. I have no side in this fight since I'm not a Assange fanboy and I have nothing but contempt for the USA.
Short-term? That article was from 2016.
In 2016 he had already spent years hiding inside an embassy. It's not that hard to conceive that hatred tends to build over time.
Okay, but you said it was short-term. That is not short-term. And as far as I know, Wikileaks is still very easy on Russia. So how long is this favoritism of his going to last? Why should that be what Wikileaks is about?
It was just a conjecture of how Assange might have thought about. I never said that there really is any link between him and Russia. And it was long ago, when he was still hiding inside Ecuador's embassy, when the hypothetical link between him and Russia was new.
I doubt he still runs wikileaks. Assange was in jail for years.
I don't know and I don't really care.
He wasn't in jail. He was in the Ecuadorian embassy. It sounds like you really don't know the details here.
what? I did acknowledge that:
and:
You literally just said:
So which is it? Was he in jail or not?
He was jailed in 2019. Are you telling me he still managed wikileaks from inside a prison in the UK?
And how many years was he in prison in the UK? Because you said he was there for years.
And we were also talking about what happened in 2016, which, last I checked, was before 2019.
So I take back what I said about you being unfamiliar. You're familiar, just dishonest about it.
You're rationalizing a 2010 case with a 2016 argument. Your timeline doesn't check out.
Also blaming Assange for exposing American war-crimes instead of Bush and Obama for committing them and covering them up is ridiculous.