Hello fellow Lemmys. The mod team here at [email protected] has been in discussions about the best approach to ensure we stay unbiased with news during the U.S. Election Cycle.

While we can’t say “don’t point out flaws in candidates” - nor would we want to - we do believe that when you excessively post/comment/reply negative things in News about one person, instead of, say mixing it up about topics, this feels like you are using [email protected] as a propaganda machine.

While propaganda is a normal part of elections, by posting only one topic, about one person, you are abusing the NEWS community for politics, and this could even be seen as election interference. There are other communities that this would fit better.

Doing this will result in posts/comments being deleted (with the option to appeal, of course). Repeat offenders may see temporary bans. Keep doing after that, and you may reach our perma-ban list.

As of right now, this only apples to politics. We don’t plan to extend this to other areas, but that will change as needed.

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    shield
    M
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Our goal is not to enforce any type of equal representation of candidates or issues. However, the articles should reflect equal newsworthiness, as you say.

    • thoro@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Of course it isn’t. Your goal is to stifle criticism of Biden from the left.

      We know this started because a (presumably, leftist) user stated they only care to share negative content of Biden and were banned.

    • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      The post sounds more like a limitation on negative press than a limit on poor sources. Might be a better idea to just temp-ban politics all together till after November, then nobody needs to try and interpret this post that doesn’t seem to align with what is being agreed with in comments.