A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
We have a basic rule that the headline must match the article. Current headline reads:
"Peter Dutton to leave Coalition leaderless, conceding he has lost his seat of Dickson"
I'll give you a fair shot to correct it before just removing it.
Done. Only because I respect you.
It doesn’t make sense that rule. But you’ll disagree anyway and there’s never a chance of winning a mod argument anyway.
The article headline you want is pointless and meaningless to the 99% of the world who visits this.
I added context and a little bit of juice to it so it would make for a better headline for non-Australians. Did I add some anti Trump sentiment? Sure. Did that misconstrue the content of the article? No.
I understand the current rule makes it easy to mod the place, but it also means you don’t let the OP add context for Lemmy. The rule should be: you can’t misconstrue the content of the article.
Anyway, I appreciate all you mods do and I respect the rules that are in place.
I disagree.
Not modifying headings is a fairly universal rule.
Making it "easier to mod" is an understatement. If you let people "adapt titles to be more suitable for lemmy" or whatever you did, then you'll spend all day having arguments about what adoptions are appropriate. It's unworkable with volunteer mods.
It's so pathetic that the top comment chain is discussing this pedantic issue instead of the actual article. Thank god for this moderation or my experience may have been slightly degraded.
Thanks @[email protected] ! I know the rules are a pain, but really it helps prevent shitposting. Imagine coming into a community and just seeing variations on "xxx is a dumbass/shithead/etc. etc." all the way down. :)
Just remove it.
People who do this shit are actively making this place worse.
Lol "the people actually making content are the problem" y'all are fucking clowns.
Can we just be loose with the moderation while the "top" posts don't even get 2k upvotes.
It gave lemmy content, it led to engaging discussions, who tf cares if the title is bad.
Jesus Christ I don't understand this mentality
You've made 3 posts in 2 years, op contributed to more fediverse in a day than you did in two years.
You really want to make this place better, then quit your bitchin or contribute more and your bitchin will be more understandable
At your service.
That’s what I thought about you when I read your message.
Man fuck em, thank you for adding to the fediverse OP! You should look at non .world communities. .world is the more shitty instance filled with "um actually......" Style users and mods
This forward progress to the human race is brought to you by the color ORANGE.
We proudly demonstrated to the world the proper direction to go.
Our loss is your gain.
It must be stated that the Labor party here are anything but progressive. They are centre-right by the most recent assessment of their values and support a variety of cunts in toxic industries who fund their campaigns.
The libs (our very right wing major party) ran an exceptionally incompetent campaign, with Dutton as a key soulless idiot who can’t admit to mistakes when it hits him in the face. They had a bit of headwind from the global anti Trump sentiment, but it wasn’t like we were in the same situation like Canada.
Regionally we already ARE the 51st state of the USA, because we provide them with much needed Southern Hemisphere intelligence bases which Australians have no right to visit, and they are our protector against any major military threat in the region.
It’s a minor victory for any progressive minded person, as any mention of action on the climate emergency was stupifyingly absent from the entire campaign.
It must be stated that the Labor party here are anything but progressive
I'm not sure how any of these things scream right wing:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-28/election-2025-key-promises-labor-coalition/104717394
I'm not sure how support for universal healthcare, renewables and the party having a gender quota is 'anything but progressive' but sure, they're centre right if your definition of right wing is anything right of the greens
Happy to have a bit of a debate over that. You can put them dead centre if that makes you feel better.
They certainly have some positives for the general public, and more so than the $.25 rebate promised by LNP. However, the majority of stuff they offer are stopgaps, instead of fixing the real underlying issues. High power bills aren’t going to go down with one off rebates. First home buyers 5% isn’t fixing the housing supply, or over demand, nor is it a solution to anyone over 40 who still hasn’t been able to buy, because a 5% deposit means you’ll pay for forever and then some. Same with tax cuts. Also Tax Cuts are right wing, though they are usually for the wealthy.
They are still all for really terrible corporate developments, they are still cosy with the coal lobby, they’re just smart enough to not bring a big beautiful lump of coal into parliament anymore. They won’t tax mega corporations fairly, they won’t do anything for the climate emergency, just boost green energy, without any serious international commitments or plans to reduce or go net zero in this term of this new government. None of that anywhere.
They tried one terribly worded referendum which probably blew the Aboriginal community a chance at some form of reconciliation for the next half a century, and there’s no more follow up. They have no solid plan for the housing crisis, just a few hand outs.
It’s not screaming right wing, and I didn’t say it was, and it certainly isn’t Trumpism, and our democracy is bar none one of the best and most secure in the world, but it isn’t progressive or left at all. It is fairly competent centrism, maintaining the status quo for corporate Australia, while minimally appeasing the plebeians, because thank fuck, it could have been so much worse. it is a shameful far cry from what we needed in order to really respond to the situation we’re in on the global timeline.
I'm a kiwi, so I only hear about Australia's most significant developments, but even then, some of the claims you're making are wrong.
the majority of stuff they offer are stopgaps, instead of fixing the real underlying issues.
They're probably putting in stopgaps to make it less painful while the fixes to the underlying issues gain steam.
High power bills [...]
This will probably be solved (or stop getting worse) as a side effect of Future Made in Australia investing in the Australian manufacture of renewable energy technologies, as Australian made versions are likely to be cheaper than global competitors (at least in Australia). It's also important to note that rising energy prices is not just an Australian problem, considering NZ's wholesale electricity price has risen >30% despite 80% of our electricity coming from renewables (and doesn't have variable running costs).
[...] housing supply, or over demand, [...]
This will probably be mitigated by the Housing Australia Future Fund as it is set up to be able to spend $500 million per year on housing in perpetuity without any additional funding. This means they could technically "sell" something like 2000 houses a year for free forever. On a more realistic note they could take a $50k loss on 10000 houses per year to help mitigate the housing supply problem.
[..] tax cuts.
It is technically possible to have tax cuts that benefit only those who are not already rolling in it, but those kinds of tax cuts are so uncommon you're likely to see a unicorn before they happen. The tax cuts are probably going to be something like the tax cuts we saw over here where the only ones that benefit are the already very wealthy.
[...] they are still cosy with the coal lobby, [...]
I was under the impression that they were majorly funded by the unions. Considering this winge piece complains about the mining industry paying 5x more in tax than they used to and makes the misleading insinuation that it is paying the majority of Australia's tax share, I'd say that they're probably not funded by the mining lobby. (Values from the Australian Treasury suggest that they're paying <10% of the total tax income)
[...] they won’t do anything for the climate emergency [and they don't have any] plans to reduce or go net zero in this term of this new government.
They appear to have this net zero plan I found on a .gov.au website? I notice it doesn't target net zero within the next 3 years because that's simply impossible. The climate action tracker suggests that Australia is doing better than NZ in terms of climate policy, especially considering our action is considered "highly insufficient."
You make the claim that it isn't progressive, but over here it certainly would be. Either way, we can still celebrate that it isn't Trumpism.
The ALP are hardly Whitlam-style socialists, but they’re somewhat more progressive than UK Labour, in that they at least purport to be progressive, rather than banking their capital, rewarding donors and distracting the public with culture wars inherited from the Tories.
Mind you, they do most of that when the Greens hold their feet to the fire. With Labor having a lower house majority, it will depend on the Senate to force them to do the right thing.
Ah yes that old chestnut. The ALP isn’t perfect so we shouldn’t vote at all. You do realise that we have to vote here in Australia so vibe based voter suppression techniques don’t really work here. The perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good.
A very nice change of recent trends across the world
I'm glad our fuck up in the US is inspiring others to step back from the edge. It's at least a silver lining I can console myself with while everything crumbles around me.
While I’m extremely happy about the election results, let’s not forget that the Conservatives were on track to sweep before Trump shit the bed so badly that the entire world had to hold its nose.
WWIII teams are forming up
It's going to be so weird helping the Germans defeat Nazi America
Same here (said the American)
.ca
You know it's going to make more sense on some level, though. We love talking shit about America, we've just never been able to channel it anywhere.
(Although if you're closer to the border it's probably different)
Congratulations Australians!
Nobody wants to let Dutton be another Trump
Trump is dismantling the US government so his billionaire friends can buy it. He's not building a global populist movement, he's siezed power and he's using it for petty, selfish ends. The whole world can see it plainly
The rise of fascism in the US may have heralded worldwide rises in conservativism for a time, but now that Trump has absolute power, he's not bothering to hide his intentions. It's swung back the other way, now the US is making the world less fascist
Fascism's win condition is always its own destruction. It's a death cult. It can't win worldwide because it promotes selfish leaders who sabotage the movement for personal enrichment
It's gonna be okay, everyone
They're not going to stop trying just because they lost an election. Don't become complacent. Victory has not yet been accomplished, defeat has been postponed.
Fascism is an existential threat to all democratic countries.
The Australian Liberal party (note, they’re the Conservative Party) has taken an anti-climate change to the Australian electorate for a decade. Over time they lost power, they lost seats to independents who are aligned to Liberal party except on climate change, and now they’ve been reduced to a puddle due in part to their anti-climate agenda. There’s practically zero chance that the Liberal Party will ever campaign on an anti-Climate Change platform (despite what their corporate overlords want). Which means we may finally have clean air for a debate on policy and politics that’s not being hijacked by bullshit fossil fuel arguments.
This is progress, for sure.
I hate the fact that it had to be the US that fell to these fascists... but at least it put the rest of the world on notice.
🇨🇦🤝🇦🇺
The Canadian cons didn't actually boot Polievre, instead they're giving him an easy to win riding and a brand new seat in parliament so he can stay on. Which probably means he'll stick around and win the next election. I hate it.
Edit: autocorrect
As an American working on moving to Australia this was great news to wake up to!
Majority Labor and Potato lost his seat, blessed be the aussies.
Almost the exact playbook as in Canada. Except it's a close minority here. But the Maple Maggot, after losing his own seat, has decided to take over another MP's seat in a by-election.
I know the chances are very, very slim, but I'd love to see the people of Battle-River-Crowfoot vote ABC and make that little weiner lose again.
There are so many hilarious opportunities with this by-election.
-91 candidates run and he comes in 91st
-Trudeau also runs there and wins
-He runs, loses, and repeats the process until the Liberals have a majority
Good!! Some hope for this world is left.
Labour in the UK is looking so fucking stupid right now
L + rato
🥳🥳
I'm not Australian and I don't know much about Australian politics.
However, I know that Australian people drive some of the biggest cars in the world. Car companies just manufacture huge SUVs and sell them to the Australian, thinking "these dumb fucks will buy them".
That's not good for the climate. That's bad for the roads. That's not even good for Australians themselves, because it's very unsafe for pedestrians. I heard that Albanese encouraged mandatory rules for better fuel efficiency. Which is a good idea. I just don't understand why the other bald guy says they are bad.
In the 1990s and 2000s, the US Auto Industry successfully fought against every attempt to impose fuel efficiency rules. After US Auto manufacturers went bankrupt in 2008, President Obama bailed them out and forced them to save some fuel. Because outside North American, no one wanted to buy american cars anymore.
During his first mandate, Trump rolled back all those Obama fuel-efficiency rules:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-obama-fuel-economy-standards.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html
Lack of strong fuel efficiency rules is the main reason why American cars are so heavy and consume so much oil compared to European cars. The bald candidate is wrong to say fuel efficiency rules are bad.
Foreign elections being won based on real opposition to Trump and those that style themselves after him. Democrats can do this, but it means they would have to stop trying to make deals with nazis.
This is so good to hear. At least some good is coming out of my country being completely fucking destroyed.
Hell yeah who's next? I need some more good news. Getting a literal ulcer over here...
