• 129 Posts
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 16th, 2023


  • “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.”

    I could be wrong, but I think this verbage was just added. Which is fine, because I suggested to mods that they make any rules about this explicit after they nuked the whole discussion. The only message to me was that it was nuked because of an “altered title”.

    Even so. My “title fairly describes link contents”. Check. I changed it exactly to “be more descriptive”. Check. So it still confirms to even the new standards. But at least now there is something that vaguely relates.

    Censorship is a serious accusation, this doesn’t clear it.

    It is serious enough for me to be glad that Lemmy has multiple sites to post things so that no one set of people are gatekeepers to information. I knew there was a reason why I loved the fact that Lemmy is decentralized.

  • Not using the exact same title of a journalist is not “editorializing” anything. They ripped out a top article just because it included a quote from inside the article in the title. This is not stale corporate Reddit (which went 10 years collecting users before having that rule) so there is no reason to have a rigid rule like that on Lemmy. But if that is not allowed in their particular community, then they need to explicitly make that a rule and enforce it fairly because that would be important for their readers/submitters to know. If they make up new reasons on the spot to justify removing something then that is censorship.

    Now an entire advanced discussion that was well underway was nuked and has to be reproduced here because a mod thought that there was an automatically implied “All Reddit rules apply here to” without telling everybody else.