Technology
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
It looks like there is a lot to do even for small sites if you assess that you might be in the "multi-risk" category. How do you know if you're in the "multi-risk" category? Well, you're supposed to write a risk assessment, but if I were running a site as a hobby I wouldn't trust my own assessment, I'd want a professional opinion due to the significant legal liability for getting it wrong, and professional opinions cost money. If it turns out you're low- or single-risk it looks like you can skip a lot of the stuff that big sites have to deal with, but if it turns out you're multi-risk then it looks like you need to be sure all sorts of measures are in place, some of which may require building capabilities that you don't have yet, and there are additional requirements related to training and materials for volunteers, etc.
I don't even run a site and I'm getting stressed reading about it, I don't blame anyone for deciding it's not worth it.
Risk assessments are trivially banal.
I'd trust mine. I have been trained to do them though. But having been trained, I can see how little is needed for them.
The measures that are required are the kind of things which now seem basic. Like having a means to flag posts as problematic. If I ran a forum that didn't have such functionality, I'd be concerned regardless and probably take advantage of the kick up the arse.
Well that's the question isn't it. Is any particular forum worth bothering with. Clearly the cycling forum that's shutting down isn't. But I question whether that's due to the new legislation.
I assess that your assessment of the risk of mis-assessing a risk assessment may be amiss
Maybe you should run an online cycling community then.