the way OP did it was correct, it just broke a stupid, incorrect rule. the correct thing to do is to stop enforcing arbitrary unpopular rules just because you think you know what’s best tbh

like your AI-generated header image says, “good men don’t need rules” - do you need rules, jordan?

thing is, it is kinda special, you’ve accumulated a lot more life experience than i have, and i’m sure there are lots aspects to life that are different when you’re 40, and i’m genuinely interested to hear the perspectives of people who are there and to try and learn from it, but this post in particular is a little silly imo!

idk i just have this crazy notion posts shouldn’t be deleted because it contains opinions someone disagrees with. that seems very intolerant and frankly immature to me.

if i just wanted a pile of headlines from mainstream media outlets i’d use an rss feed

spice things up and put a bomb in it ^/j

closest non-apple alternative to appleTV is probably nvidia shield, but it may have enshittified when i wasn’t looking. appleTV is pretty much the only apple device I use these days, every now and again i use my old ipad

take it up with the UN i suppose, not to mention the various other human rights organizations who have reported on this

no way am i gonna click that link

seeing something as commonplace does not make it sensible. thought you’d be smart enough not to make such a fallacious argument

and your downvotes mean nothing to me, i’ve seen what makes you upvote. also, downvotes are disabled on my instance, as they should be on all instances tbh. and as far as i know you may have a hundred sockpuppets. wouldn’t surprise me even a little bit

the user-supplied headline provides yet more context than the one supplied by the media outlet

the rule value the opinions of mainstream media pundits - which is owned and controlled by the ruling class - over the opinions of fediverse users - who have editorial independence. it’s as simple as that really

i’m actually a really smart baby communicating using neuralink

• limit editorialized clickbait titles

article titles from media outlets are often clickbait, misleading or minimize harm. why is clickbait ok as long as it comes from the media outlet but bad when it comes from a user? seems arbitrary

• limit reposts (under secondary titles)

can be done through article URL, probably even automatically, meanwhile it is super common for article titles to change but URL almost never does.

• let the story author/editor team keep their voice

they have the entire article body and title for their voice, they’re likely writing for often major news outlets, this is a relatively tiny community space.

again, the cost is that this story, which is about lawmakers who are in support of child abuse, being suppressed, because the poster isn’t jumping through some arbitrary loophole. the cost/benefit analysis seems pretty clear to me personally

i’m a weird guy who dies on a lot of stupid hills - i think this is a miscommunication because i always post replies then edit to clarify, and it’s confusing, sorry about that - and all good, no harm done!

this is a story about child abuse, which i’ve got a lot of trauma around, so it’s likely that i’m acting weird about it, i don’t understand how acknowledging that is a straw man. you just said i was acting weird and i was like “yeah probably, here’s why”

although i still think the rule is stupid, as i wrote, the opinions of the article author isn’t more valid than the opinion of whoever shared the article and the author’s title and many more words are just a click away

huh?

what, child abuse? i was abused as a kid so yeah maybe i’m a little weird about it, sorry if that’s the case

it was literally impossible to edit titles on reddit. it was a stupid rule there anyways, but good for you for clearing that bar despite the fact that the bar is underground

maybe the title should just be the word “news” to make sure no opinions sneak in

wild how you can’t recognize how stupid the rule is

it’s a stupid rule. the opinions of article authors are no more worthy than the opinions of the people who post the links, and if anyone wants to know what the title is they can just click the link.

and it is literally leading you into a situation where you’d rather enforce some bureaucratic bullshit over raising awareness of lawmakers who voted in favor of child abuse.

but maybe that’s the point.

i get to tell you it’s a stupid, bad rule, and that you should get rid of it. doesn’t matter how simple it is. i recognize i unfortunately have no power over you, all i can do is tell you it’s dumb and hope for the best.

boomer shit