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
Our Current Affairs teacher pulled this move, spring of '89 for context:
Paper boy drops off a stack of the afternoon edition, teacher picks one up and seriously peruses it for a minute.
Reading from the paper: "Please pay attention. 'President George Bush has announced that an offensive action has begin against Iraq. US Air Force tactical bombers led the assault on Baghdad at 4AM this morning while grounds troops have taken positions on the outskirts.'" And so forth. "Discuss."
We excitedly kicked this around for 20 minutes. First time GenX was at war! He then showed us the headline: Local Man Wins Regional Bike Race.
"Every one of you believed what I said because you thought it was written in the newspaper." Stunned silence. "Discuss."
He was county or state teacher of the year for '88 and promised an automatic A to anyone who could make him smile, even once. We had no clue if he was a Democrat or Republican, no clue as to his opinion on anything.
And just look around lemmy. Hundreds of upvotes because people thought Vance made a serious comment about Greenland being cold. (It was an obvious joke to the troops if one had taken a moment and thought, "Surely fucking not." and watched 25-seconds of video.)
Something rubs the the wrong way about how the teacher presented that problem. Was the lesson supposed to be "don't believe anything unless you can verify it yourself"? In his example, he was the unreliable source. I'm assuming he was infering the paper can also be an unreliable source? I'm hoping he went into the importance of checking multiple, credible sources to get a larger picture, rather than just leaving it at "you always might be lied to". A blanket "don't trust so-called authorities for facts" is how we end up with people questioning vaccines and flat earthers turning from satire to something troubling.