this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
98 points (92.2% liked)

politics

19043 readers
3880 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

We've had some trouble recently with posts from aggregator links like Google Amp, MSN, and Yahoo.

We're now requiring links go to the OG source, and not a conduit.

In an example like this, it can give the wrong attribution to the MBFC bot, and can give a more or less reliable rating than the original source, but it also makes it harder to run down duplicates.

So anything not linked to the original source, but is stuck on Google Amp, MSN, Yahoo, etc. will be removed.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 19 points 5 days ago (7 children)

As someone who raised this issue, I want to thank the mods for addressing this. The MBFC bot aside, I think this will also cut down on dupes, as I’ve seen numerous times where an article was shared twice- once from the OG source and then another version from MSN or Yahoo news.

And for users who want to check the source of something, it does make it easier to fact check for yourself.

Who knows, it might even slow down certain profligate posters who obviously just take every link in a news aggregator and share it (and then brush off every comment with a “I didn’t write the article…) 😉

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Accounts have been spamming MSN, amp and yahoo links?

[–] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 10 points 5 days ago (46 children)
load more comments (46 replies)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (2 children)

People usually link to sites like MSN and Yahoo because the content is no longer locked behind a paywall. 🤷‍♂️

[–] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Many of the articles I’ve seen are not in fact behind a paywall but obviously YMMV

[–] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What seems reasonable to me is, if someone is willing to make the optional effort to do so, to link the original paywalled source as the primary link, but then either add the paywall-free MSN/Yahoo/AMP link at the bottom of the description or in a comment. It looks like this would still be in line with the updated rules, but would prevent duplicate posts (one posts only the paywall free version and one posts only with a paywall link).

[–] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There’s much better ways to do archive links that deal with paywalls, e.g. archive.is and others. News aggregators should not be relied on for archival links, as a link that works today may not work a year from now, as corporate agreements/ownership change

[–] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ah, that's a good point that I hadn't considered. You're right.

Of course there might be that rare exception - where the archivers can't get past the paywall on the original site, but it's available from MSN or something.

Even so, it seems like as a general rule, prefer to use an archiver, and fall back to a news aggregator only as a last resort, and then archive the news aggregator's page so it's retained even if the aggregator drops the article later on. Am I on the right track here?

(Current example, https://archive.ph/nugTi did not succeed in getting https://theintercept.com/2024/10/09/white-house-oct-7-israel-war-gaza/ - in the past I've seen this overcome by archiving from the Google Cache'd version or from a version archived in the Wayback machine, but Google Cache was killed by Google and archive.org is currently down still over this holiday weekend.)

[–] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

BTW, for that site and others with more of a nagwall rather than a paywall, viewing it in reader view takes care of the popup (and many Lemmy clients can be set to default to reader view for links)

Thanks, the tip about the reader view solves the original issue (on reading nagwalled articles). I run my own pyfedi/piefed instance so I'd be surprised if I could use a lemmy client, but I'll keep it in mind.

If only there was a way I could feed my reader view into archive.is (which would solve the other issue, that of preserving the article in case the original ever goes down).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

www.amputatorbot.com

Especially useful on mobile. Simply paste/copy to fix amp links. Free, no ads.

e: formatting

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OlinOfTheHillPeople@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

Can we please just get rid of the propaganda bot instead? It's bad at what it claims to do, and does nothing to stem the flow of disinformation here.

If you really want users to think about their sources, then you should have a dedicated source discussion thread for every post.

The bot actively and objectively makes Lemmy a worse platform. I've personally stopped recommending Lemmy to friends, and the bot is the top reason. (The other reason is the power users who astroturf the various news communities with their pet issues. Hopefully that will change after the election.)

[–] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

So the reason you don’t recommend Lemmy is a bot that you can block if you don’t like it? That seems a little much, IMO

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago (5 children)

Please provide an OG source for this.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›