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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
don't accept the easiest conclusions too though. Israel is punching down on civilians. That much is fact.
And don't blindly refuse to believe anything you read on the internet
I'm not. I do approach everything on here with a degree of skepticism though. Nothing simply gets blind faith.
In this case, when the IDF wants to kill someone, they just blow up the building/vehicle they are in. Luring people out to machine gun them down from drones smacks of sensationalist bs, and no evidence is provided beyond supposed testimonies.
Given the reports of "kill zones" used by the IDF it doesn't seem so unrealistic.
You're right of course, that you shouldn't blindly believe this type of stuff. If the IDF hadn't killed so many journalists and Israel banned outlets it doesn't like we might have some independent verification of this. But we can't get it. Honestly while you obviously shouldn't 100% believe it this fact does make me more likely to believe, because they obviously have something to hide.
I think Israel is intentionally creating this doubt so their PR, hasbara spewers and supporters can dismiss any crime with faux-superiority and "well it's unverified."
Imagine hearing the testimony of a victim of the attack on October 7th and just being like, naah, just a report, why should I believe this? Well because you know exactly the sort of stuff that happened that day and this person was literally there you fucking idiot. The question is why disbelieve it?
Likewise, the IDF has done so much disgusting shit and lied so much through the conflict, why should I disbelieve this? I'm cautiously accepting unless further evidence emerges.
Well said.
Personally I neither believe nor disbelieve, I just remain in that "maybe" space in between the two. This space exists for me until well after the war is over. One thing I certainly believe is it is impossible to accurately determine the truth in an active war without seeing it for yourself, so I don't bother trying.
The truth comes out later, once it is safe to do more in-depth, time-consuming work with more neutral parties. This is just one part of the problem with wars, their inherent deadliness keeps neutral investigators away.
edit: Every war is a Schrodinger's Box, every supposed fact is the cat inside. It cannot actually be opened until people in the area are no longer dying. Essentially.
I think we can trust the Euro-Med human rights monitor.
And considering Israel's track record, I wouldn't find this story hard to believe.
I see nothing in there that makes them worthy of a great deal of trust. To the contrary, being Palestinian-affiliated means they're on a side in a war.
Being on a side is fine, but it does not and should not promote trust.
What's the matter? You can't imagine that Israel can commit crimes against humanity? Is that why you can't trust any independent committee that highlights these things?
They're not independent, if you check the wikipedia article someone else shared. With the UN does not guarantee independence in any way, shape or form.
You mean the Wikipedia article I JUST POSTED in my previous comment?
The one that the very first line says:
Also the same article
By who???? Linkiesta and Global Muslim brotherhood daily watch???
What the fuck are those?
Linkiesta's editor is a big fan of Mordechai Richler and the guy behind the GMBDW sounds like an Islamophobe with a conspiracy theorist blog.
Didn't know that was you.
When you click through, you find out:
Ramy Abdu (Arabic: رامي عبده) (or Ramy Abdo[1]) is a Palestinian financial expert
Now, I'm not saying no Palestinians should be trusted. But I certainly wouldn't simply assume some unbiased neutrality here, when his own people are being killed.
Just because someone is with the UN does not guarantee their independence. It depends on the person.
The leader was the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian... so maybe look harder.
Just because someone is with the UN does not make them trustworthy. The UN is not some inherently perfect thing. Unless you think Saudi oil tycoons are the proper people to be heading an international taskforce on climate change.
Much like any other org, one has to pay attention to details and not just blindly trust. This is true of every org, no exceptions. If it features people, it should not be blindly trusted at all times.
Then who the fuck do you trust? At what point can anyone or any organnzation be trustworthy according to your impossible standards?
Completely trust? No one. I trust systems and methods. I do not trust any person or group of people to properly use any system or method 100% of the time.
Life isn't so easy, unfortunately.
I tend to trust thorough investigations that show their evidence, usually, regardless of who puts them out. For instance, I'm fairly confident the expose done on the IDF intentionally targeting Reuters journalists a few months ago was accurate.
Nothing is perfect though.
Moving the goalposts.
No, my original goalpost was one should not believe everything one reads on the internet. This is consistent with completely believing no one, and maintaining healthy skepticism. Nice try though.