Wasn’t asking you and I have no idea why anyone would care about your specific input. This was a suggestion based on the source of the article, not the fact you posted it.
This seemed unnecessarily harsh. By stating “no issues” instead of objecting, OP was basically making the path smoother (as mods would have to take into account or at least briefly consider dissident opinions if they existed).
And … while I specifically get why you wouldn’t want to consider OP’s opinion in particular, OP is not the only one who post links from link aggregators. And it’s worth asking if any of the folks who do so why they have done so and if they would have any objections.
In fact jordanlund brought up a good one - that maybe it’s worth allowing because we sometimes get original news articles from those sites as well. Perhaps we could allow only original new articles from those sites but not copies of articles sourced from elsewhere.
I’d bring up a second potential objection to address - sometimes MSN and Yahoo will post articles in full from WSJ, Financial Times, etc. Basically being an alternative to a paywall. (And being the most unobjectable kind of paywall bypassing as these sites presumably got permission to post those articles in full from the original source.) So maybe that means we allow only original new articles from those sites plus copies of articles sourced from paywalled sites, but otherwise not copies of articles sourced from elsewhere.
Ah interesting, I hadn’t see where the decision was announced (maybe federation was slow at sending the update). Mind linking or recapping here?
I might be late to the party, but aside from the “unnecessarily harsh” bit (which doesn’t involve the moderators) I didn’t express any opinions, so no harm done fortunately.
Just the comment thread above (which I can accept as an exceptional case) or in general across all my posts and comments (which would be a lot more worrisome) ?
Now that you’ve brought up gender identify, I realized that I made a mistake - I had the unconscious assumption that I was replying to a guy, which was absolutely wrong of me. I need to sit back and reflect on this.
I pesonally have no issues with that if they decide to change the rules.
Wasn’t asking you and I have no idea why anyone would care about your specific input. This was a suggestion based on the source of the article, not the fact you posted it.
This seemed unnecessarily harsh. By stating “no issues” instead of objecting, OP was basically making the path smoother (as mods would have to take into account or at least briefly consider dissident opinions if they existed).
And … while I specifically get why you wouldn’t want to consider OP’s opinion in particular, OP is not the only one who post links from link aggregators. And it’s worth asking if any of the folks who do so why they have done so and if they would have any objections.
In fact jordanlund brought up a good one - that maybe it’s worth allowing because we sometimes get original news articles from those sites as well. Perhaps we could allow only original new articles from those sites but not copies of articles sourced from elsewhere.
I’d bring up a second potential objection to address - sometimes MSN and Yahoo will post articles in full from WSJ, Financial Times, etc. Basically being an alternative to a paywall. (And being the most unobjectable kind of paywall bypassing as these sites presumably got permission to post those articles in full from the original source.) So maybe that means we allow only original new articles from those sites plus copies of articles sourced from paywalled sites, but otherwise not copies of articles sourced from elsewhere.
You’re welcome to your opinion but the mods already made their decision so you’re late to the party
Ah interesting, I hadn’t see where the decision was announced (maybe federation was slow at sending the update). Mind linking or recapping here?
I might be late to the party, but aside from the “unnecessarily harsh” bit (which doesn’t involve the moderators) I didn’t express any opinions, so no harm done fortunately.
https://lemmy.world/post/20721204
As for the rest, I don’t know your gender identity but I have to say you come across very mansplain-y.
Just the comment thread above (which I can accept as an exceptional case) or in general across all my posts and comments (which would be a lot more worrisome) ?
Now that you’ve brought up gender identify, I realized that I made a mistake - I had the unconscious assumption that I was replying to a guy, which was absolutely wrong of me. I need to sit back and reflect on this.
Anyways, thank you for the link!
Public forum. I can give or decline to give my input. You gave your input. I gave mine. Thank you!
Spoken like a true main character. So your input was essentially “I have no opinion”? Thank goodness you cleared that up for us, bud!
Remember that’s not “charactor” - I know you have trouble with that one.