view the rest of the comments
World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
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.
-
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 OCTOBER 19 2025
-
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
They would need a new party that needs to be created and need to get popular. And the new one would hopefully learn to not break the constitution.
Are you argumenting that partys are above laws and constitution?
It depends on how popular it is. If it's 5% of the pop- def not. If it's 30%, probably not. If it's 60% then the laws and constitution might need amendment.
But that's besides my point. If you rely on forcing a third of Germany to make another party to represent it, you might not like what the new party's popularity would be.
Ok, now I am confused. You are saying that they, as a party with around 30% popularity, shouldnt be above the law but the law shouldnt be enforced because it may make them more popular?
I'm suggesting that just enforcing the law without providing an aternative (for AfD), at this point in time, is likely to make them (the figures that formed the AfD) more popular, along with their new party they'll inevitably form. I doubt Germany would round all of them up and throw them in jail. I think the time to ban the AfD was when there were significantly fewer people on their bandwagon. The other comment under mine says AfD voters aren't too fervent supporters, so perhaps it won't go the way I think it would. But that's not my bet. (What I think would happen isn't what I hope btw.)
When I say alternative I don't mean another deporters party but with nicer messaging. That clearly doesn't work. I mean an alternative that gives people real improvements by counteracting the austerity policies of the past for example.
Any follow-up party is automatically banned too. That's how this law works.
SPD and C*U are already doing a lot of anti immigration stuff. Immigration is sinking for years now and more and more get exported. What is actually missing for them being an alternative for AfD followers?
Also hopefully the new party they form would learn to not break laws anymore.
Sorry I added an edit abt what I meant by alternative before I saw your reply.
Ah read the update. Not sure what you mean with austerity policies? Also partys with real improvements like the leftist parties?