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
Precisely why it should not be passed! That's not a good reason at all. It's not worth eroding people's rights if it only affects a few cases in my personal opinion. It shows that the law doesn't need to exist in the first place.
Also... what kind of argument is that? It may be dozens a year but once it is normalized with those dozens, it will become few dozens and on and on it goes.
Not a general slippery slope argument, but rather, it's clear how it makes future erosion easier.
Today: People named Joe who live at this address can be harassed freely and that's perfectly legal. Tomorrow: It's not so extreme! Look, see, we've never universally respected these rights anyway. There are cases where we legally ignored them. We're just expanding existing rules to cover more cases.
People always abuse these back doors. Always. To think otherwise is to be ridiculously naive
I always love when governments ask for powers to stop only a few cases, and act like it’s justification. Maybe, just maybe, do your job.
It's like the Apple case for building a backdoor that makes everyone less safe to catch one criminal. They ended up not needing it anyway.
Honestly one of the worst parts is I hate how police/the government can/will abuse these abilities if given a chance, because sometimes those few cases where they could be used they could potentially be really useful.
I work in 911 dispatch, we don't always have a totally accurate location from a cell phone, people sometimes repeatedly hang up on us, put their phone down and walk away, refuse to answer when we call back, or are too hysterical to answer any questions. Being able to put their phone on speakerphone remotely, keep them from hanging up on us, turn on their camera, etc. so we can see/hear at least some of what's going on could be really useful sometimes to help make sure we're sending the right kind of help to the right place. Being able to turn on a phone camera to see where a barricaded subject is in a building or room, see what kinds of weapons he has, hear what he's saying, etc. could be really useful sometimes. Sometimes someone will butt dial us or their kid playing with their phone will call us a few dozen times in a row, and it would be kind of nice to be able to come over their phone speaker and just say "Hey, you keep calling 911, if you don't have an emergency can you please stop?"
But cops would rather use those capabilities to harass protesters and such.
It's a dangerous road to walk for something that would be 'kind of nice' in very specific situations.
I agree, but you do also have to remember that a lot of those specific situations I'd be dealing with from the dispatch end of things could very often be life-or-death for the people involved. More accurate information from us could mean getting the right amount of help to the right places faster and using it more effectively, which means lives saved.
It's very much a double edged sword, it's technology that could save lives, and it could be used to wrongfully deprive people of their lives and liberty. I've outlined some of the ways I would use it to help save lives, I'm not trying to make a judgement about whether or not that good it could do outweighs the harm it could do by being abused. It might, it might not, it's not exactly clear-cut how the value of a handful of human lives stacks up against the rights and freedoms of the many, and in either case we're dealing with largely hypothetical situations. My main point is to lament that these capabilities would almost certainly be abused and that because of that we may not get to use them to save lives when we otherwise could have.
I'm imagining a situation where the caller does not want it to be known that they have called emergency. Hostage situations, domestic violence, home intrusions... Last thing you want when you're hiding in a dark cupboard from an armed stalker is your phone to start blasting at full volume and flashing lights because a well intentioned operator wanted to see through the camera.
That's the sort of discretion we already have to use though, we have no control over what volume their ringtone may be at when we call back now, we don't call text to 911 callers unless they confirm it's safe for them to talk, etc.
Technically, any number bigger than 24 counts as "dozens" ...