Your submission in “There are more registered Democrats in 2025 than registered Republicans” was removed as toxic politics (rule b)).

Your submission to !UpliftingNews@lemmy.world has been removed for involving toxic politics (rule b)).

I would’ve removed this post if I saw it earlier. It’s an interesting article (that surprisingly hasn’t been posted anywhere else yet) but it documents another problem in our society, not any sort of progress or resolution. I would remove, say, “The fight to release the double-tap boat strike video” even if we didn’t have the toxic politics rule.

pinging some of the other mods for their thoughts: @NickwithaC@lemmy.world, @sga@piefed.social, @wolfeh@lemmy.world

deleted by creator

Could you give some examples?

The article is about something much more sinister than not giving out appropriated money: The administration is now giving out nearly all of the appropriated money, but by paying a termed lump sum to far fewer projects—the only money these projects will ever get for at least four years, paid out in one payment right now, effectively halving the grant money projects receive while simultaneously meeting the obligations to congressional appropriations, decreasing investment in science and research, and preparing to allow for drastic budget cuts to science research next year.

The article explains this much better than I can, complete with visualizations after every sentence since this is _The Upshot _:

In the past, the N.I.H. typically awarded grants in five annual installments. Researchers could request two more years to spend this money, at no cost. Under the new system, the N.I.H. pays up front for four years of work. And researchers can get one more year to spend this money. Which means that they get less money on average, and less time to spend it.

As a result of this quiet policy shift, the average payment for competitive grants swelled from $472,000 in the first half of the fiscal year to over $830,000 in the last two months.

From $472,000–a-year to $830,000–for-four-years, and that’s unadjusted for inflation.

The Conservative government response to a 2016–17 parliamentary petition demanding proportional representation said that “A referendum on changing the voting system was held in 2011 and the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the FPTP system.”[209] Tim Ivorson of the electoral reform campaign group Make Votes Matter responded by quoting the petition’s text that “The UK has never had a say on PR. As David Cameron himself said, the AV referendum was on a system that is often less proportional than FPTP, so the rejection of AV could not possibly be a rejection of PR.”[210]

I’m hoping it’s not just because the outgoing one was controversial. If it is, then I’ll probably remove this post since rotation of the Interpol president is bound to, required to happen every four years and it is borderline schadenfreude.

Added rule d) to clarify our current civility policy.

Dang, beat me to it wasted a share 😭

didn’t mean to put NYT on the same level on a newswire lol. I still think NYT will not present overt lies but I agree that they can construe things extremely misleadingly.

Al Jazeera has less bias than the Canary article OP posted, and TOI and NYPost—on the opposite bias—and Gizmodo—which is as neutral as Variety—made the same mistake. What is happening? At least I can still trust Reuters and NYT.

Anyways, my point is all Wales did was basically make a post to Wikipedia’s official forum.

Where is the headline substantiated? Where does the article say that Wales removed the relevant article content? He has not. Check for yourselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&action=history&offset=&limit=500 It saddens me that news outlets are making false headlines like this. All he did was what the article mentioned about talking on the talk page.

A handful of outlets I thought reliable (from Al Jazeera to Jerusalem Post, both sides of the spectrum) also at least initially said that Wales blocked non-admins from editing the article. What is this nonsense? Wales has no extra permissions besides what anyone with 500 edits has. The “Founder” user right is purely decorative.

@DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world @pelespirit@sh.itjust.works Is there something I’m missing here?

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).