Removed: I don’t see how this is supposed to be uplifting

Your submission in “US news outlets refuse to sign new Pentagon rules to report only official information” was removed as schadenfreude or toxic politics .

It is not.

Your submission in “Still No Kings: Millions to Protest Trump On Saturday” was removed as toxic politics (rule b).

Your submission in “DHS agents retreat as Chicago cops refuse to shield them from swarming protesters” was removed as schadenfreude.

I am once once again asking for your bars—what should be the bar/criteria for removal?

I think we should ask for and respect the decision of the community instead of imposing our own judgements. And of course, we still remove personal attacks (not that your admittedly negative-ish comment counted as one /gen).

What would be your criteria for removing a post as “orphan crushing machine”? (Also, political posts meeting the “More clarification” paragraph at https://lemmy.world/post/30918729 are already removed, the most recent but weak example being the post on Sanders having his tour go to NYC for a Mamdani town hall.) (Separate threads, separate comments.)

What would be your criteria for removing a comment?

I would’ve removed the post if I saw it before it gained traction. The thing with these things is people usually upvote them because they see it at !all instead of thinking it fits !upliftingnews, and too much of these posts can dilute the quality of our community and drive away users who wanted the specific thing we’re looking for.

Your submission in “Sexual predator Noel Clarke loses libel case against The Guardian” was removed as not uplifting.

Your submission in “LA Ice protests spurred US military to identify ‘hotels to avoid’ due to ‘harassment’” was removed as not sure if schadenfreude but definitely not uplifting.

you know what?

you’ve just darn saved this post from removal, my friend.

Your submission in “Police seize supercars worth more than £6m in crackdown on antisocial driving in London” was removed as i don’t see what’s uplifting here, sorry.

Your submission in “Horror moment superyacht bursts into flames off Ibiza coast before sinking” was removed as schadenfreude. Note that this is your second time breaking the rule in three days.

I don’t think it’s possible to summarize the rules any further (besides dropping the parenthetical) without causing more people to just read the summarized summarized version and think they’ve understood all the rules and go on to break some rules. and there’s a certain charm to the persuasion-style sidebar we have i wanna preserve lol

On the formatting: I’m very keen on preserving the semantic formatting of HTML. HTML without the style attribute is really only supposed to tell you the relation between the elements instead of styling things. It lays out how the page is organized so any client/user may decide how to customize that layout themselves if they want to. Replacing semantics with styling removes that semantic meaning and in certain cases can make it harder for screenreaders. Here, the semantics have to be inferred from the decoration.

But thanks for your time!

and nay, it doesn’t need to be textual

okay this was something I worried about. I made sure to format the list with markdown syntax that would generate HTML for accessibility but it looks like it’s just made things more inaccessible. I’ll see if changing to headings make it better.

i think a lot of news from months ago has quite a bit of relevance to the current day, and i haven’t seen much posts about things that happened years ago. for the latter case i think it really depends on community sentiment reflected on the comments of said posts.