☺

If content breaks rule you can warn with a comment or act by deleting content, you don’t need the permission of someone else. It’s good you try to establish whether others agree with you, but you don’t need it in order to enforce a rule is what I mean as alternative.

I think it’s good you started this thread, but I don’t think it’ll be easy to reach a democratic decision based on the comments in a post.

I think the choice you have to make is wether you want to control the community or want to guide the community.

If you want you could for example make a rule like: posts that are neither news nor uplifting will be deleted. And then warn someome who posts non uplifting non news with a comment on that post, and ignore all the backlash. Next time the same person posts another non uplifting non news, just straight away delete it. If you would only do things everyone likes, you would have no function. You’re the boss, you make the choices. Everybody can disagree, but they have 0 power. They can go and make a non uplifting non news community if they want.

Didn’t think I’d end up saying this but thank god he made that moron.

How is it gonna be a civil war if the military is not on the governments side? I mean i have seen the stuff the us police and ICE gets, but neither would have the numbers or the tactical knowledge to win from the effing military. If the military would try and overthrow the president, I can’t imagine FBI and CIA would try and stop them.

Might turn out like in Turkey though, were nothing really happened except 100,000 people getting convicted of treason or fired from their job.

I’ll be honest, even if that is the only real reason for them doing this, I would still consider this good news.

If this were any other president than Trump it would’ve been a great Onion back in the day, but to be honest a headline like this wouldn’t for a second make me doubt whether it’s satire or not.

You really are a genius, i wasn’t sure before.

Every child knows a rule only counts if a) you’re caught breaking them and b) you’re punished for breaking them.b

Well, running for president isn’t really running if the result is already fixed. So you have that going for you.

Please don’t, I would buy them and finance Trump :(

Officer breaks up 2 people fighting, asks “What’s going on here?”

“This is my house and this man came into my garden and doesn’t want to leave,” one man says.

“Well, you don’t understand sir, I have been living in this neighborhood all my live and everybody agrees this is a nice place to be.” the other man says.

The officer thinks long and hard about the situation until he looks to the homeowner and says “Mister, you have a very nice house and he only took the garden so I think it would be fair if we could find some middle ground after all the fighting you two have been doing. I mean, wouldn’t it be nice if you could do something better with all your resources? I propose you just go back inside and enjoy your nice house. You can just choose to not be upset about some man who took over your garden. I mean, I can’t force you to accept my proposal but it’s either that, or I leave and you two go back to fighting.
It’s easy, just go inside and watch some TV.
Why are you making this so complicated?
You’re not even in the garden all the time.
Imagine yourself in my position, wouldn’t you too want to go home to your wife instead of dealing with someone who didn’t even thank me for showing up?
If it wasn’t for me you would still be fighting this man.
Just be cool okay, no need to be ungrateful about this. Think about me for a second here, jeez.”

Nice how this woman on the right tells the story

Trump was so upset with The Onion he decided to get back in office, only way to bankrupt them was by getting reelected and hiring clowns like Hegseth

My 2 cents is that a community like this doesn’t need to take moderating too serious, since the content isn’t polarising or flammable anyway. I’d suggest just keeping an eye on the posts and comments - other users will also object if content looks out of place. Have a few simple rules maybe so you can point to them when you want to remove content.

Agree 100% on when to delete and when to ban.

1. I’d say don’t delete, I wouldn’t care and not upvote so whatever. Doesn’t break a rule.

2a. Point out that it is not uplifting because the profit being made.

2b Upvote and comment how awesome this is

3a doesn’t break rules, do what you want 3b+3c Upvote if you like open source things

4 in general can be a problem because of it’s political nature, but if post doesn’t break rules let it be and worry about comments breaking rules. 4a-c2 it is news and people might be happy he leaves so I wouldn’t delete but watch comments. 4d+4e this is news and is good, let it be despite having a negative opinion (!) about the martian leader. 4f1+4f2+4g+4f(I think you wanted this to be 4h but I’ll just mention it and share my thoughts) I’d argue that you could say it is good news he is sad, but I’d argue his emotional state itself isn’t newsworthy and his dog dieing isn’t uplifting news so delete.

To me something is upliftng, if i can tell it a youngling, a growing learning mind. Their brain is pure, maybe not ready to comprehend the vast world. To them, there are only simple rules - you see someone injured, you dress them. You see someone crying, ask why, if you can not help, ask someone else, and so on. This should be enough to get most questions answered from my perspective

Yes 100%

Don’t worry about a potential ‘mistake’ you’re the mod and you’re human, you possibly making a mistake is part of the deal of participanting in an online community.

The source they link to is more fun to read and also just better written if you ask me, also not paywalled. I’d downvote 404media for this, if i could. https://www.regenerator1.com/p/building-our-native-ai-newsroom?ref=404media.co

He is doing an experiment with an ai chatbot, the whole point is to write about his experience, he is a journalist first of all.

You are just plain wrong, you would see that if you would actually read what’s in the source you provide. To be honest I think you just Googled for something that fits your narrative so trying to get a point across might not be worth my time, but to explain what is in the information you provided:

First of all, this data covers bilateral aid to Ukraine between January 24, 2022 and December 31, 2024. In other words, the data covers nearly 3 years while the article writes about 2024 only. Since the data you provide isn’t about the same time period as the article I posted, it is not relevant to your argument.

Second of all, you can see in the graph this is about 3 kinds of aid. Of that $114 bn, 64 is in militairy aid and 64 is financial aid. Both of those are not included, as i explained to you in my previous post. The actual humanitarian aid the US provided over the time period in your graph only 3.4 Bn is actually humanitarian aid.

I don’t disagree that the headline would be more precise if it specifically said humanitarian aid instead of international aid when the article would be about aid from the us (or any other country) to another specific country, as it would be about bilateral aid. International aid in this case can also mean the aid that is given internationally, as in, multiple nations giving aid to multiple nations. But I don’t care about your argument about the preciseness of the headline.

You’re point is that the article is wrong and so poorly written it is basically misinformation and I do not agree at all. But I’m not going to explain why that is bullshit, I’ve wasted enough time. If you want to believe your own truth, be my guest.

Instead of aid to developing countries, the headline says international aid. Aid to Ukraine is international aid, but Ukraine is not a developing country.

Yes, the headline says international aid because it is not only aid to developing countries.

The article explicitly mentions it is because governments choose to spend their money internally, have you even read it??