HandsHurtLoL

Yeah, I see your viewpoint on this.

The only reason why I'm still leaning towards the litmus test being on the news sites versus the author is because the legal teams at NYT are not going to permit "freedom of the press" to be the fig leaf covering a very poor piece of writing, even from opinion pieces.

I'm willing to see the counterexamples, but this is based on my experience as a journalist back in the day.

Having said that, I do think that a poor writer could communicate a lot of bad takes and still get printed. The issue really only comes up when a writer makes baseless claims - it now opens the door for lawsuits against the publisher.

Sounds like someone was able to provide a workaround. I know ernest is in the process of rolling out more mod tools. Do you think it's worth adding a bug report on codeberg?

No, usually this is only the first 50 words or first 2 sentences. I have noticed a few posts like this, now that you mentioned it. I thought the users were doing it - didn't know that was a functionality of pulling in an article for submission.

Thanks for sharing!

Easy buy in from me. =)

Yes, we are triangulating around this. Others have signaled a similar take, and I'm on board with it. We may add "badges" which are similar to post flair from reddit.

I didn't think you were asking for an echo chamber. I added that information to add some transparency so that members of this community may understand more on my perspective and get to know my philosophy a bit more. I wasn't reacting directly to you by saying that.

I want to be sensitive to outside perspectives (not yours) who may be seeing this dialogue as a witch hunt for them because of my own personal foibles and emotive reactions to their positions on politics, hence all this - what is apparently coming across as - softer language.

Please know, in my heart, I'm more Malcolm X than MLK.

Within reason, given my personal values, I too am willing to be a bit more lenient if that's what the community wants. Taking on mod responsibilities shouldn't become my entire life (nor any of the other mods on the team now) and part of that is letting the userbase self-regulate up until a user's presence becomes disruptive.

I'm seeing pretty broad support for not even tolerating even an inch from this camp, so I'm sure this will come out in the moderation rules.

I have seen enough users actively combat alt-right content here that I'm happy to swing the ban hammer on neo-Nazi and pro-white supremacy content.

What I don't want to create is an echo chamber that only permits the views of people I agree with.

I say this with all sincerity: as a progressive, we need genuine and legitimate leadership to step up and start governing again in the GOP. We don't need people who were once too awful to embrace getting a redemption arc (a la Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney style), but real and serious political leaders. I would like this magazine to be a place to stay informed about the moves and leadership on the right that are worth building bridges with.

And as much as I hate the entire MAGA crowd, we still need to be informed of their movements and goings on. So I'm not willing to draw the line at no right wing content from right wing sources ever. But I happily draw the line at no neo-Nazi or white supremacy sympathizing.

I appreciate you articulating all this!

Nah. I don't think it's a matter of AI isn't up to snuff. I think it's because the WGA strike is about this exact scenario in which human writers don't want to be displaced by AI and don't want to be editors for AI-generated content.

Thank ya thank ya!

Mod post is now stickied at the top of !politics soliciting input for community guidelines. Feel free to chime in!