tiredturtle

I'm sorry this instance has problematic relationships with some capitalist overlords being favoured but you are correct.

I'll try to see if I catch examples happening

Sources like The Guardian, Reuters, Telegraph, CNN, BBC are sometimes allowed and sometimes removed on rule 1.

The latter case is usually evident while lurking and finding a deep long comment thread. Sometimes one user there has deleted messages and there's another's rule 3 content comments left. Apparently these cases seem to usually be mutual rule 3 but it looks like they're treated differently.

It is somewhat opaque how sometimes the rules apply and sometimes they don't, like news sources on rule 1, and iirc rule 3 in general. Deleting content should have the mod informing the user and the rest community what happened and have a way for the users to manage mistakes, be it either accidental rule breaks by the user or wrongful modding.

I usually just lurk and post only if I see a topic which doesn't seem to be posted yet. Seems like eastern police state & oligarchy has been that lately, and I think it's definitely something that is interesting from a communist human rights point of view. I don't know if they're taboo topics or just happenstance that I saw two of these lately before they hit here.

Yup. Surprised me as well. I've thought of it being an ok enough source, just apply normal media criticism. But Lemmy doesn't have transparency on whose mod decision it was or how to report those which seem to be on false premises or accidentally... Maybe some day.

The Guardian is not allowed on this community as per rule 1

Good call. I don't know if the new information about the release from being jailed is fake news, here's an older source

Thanks for the confirmations

I was thinking of that situation as well, and I remember there was some foul play around that plan. The gist might have been that the Russian envoy did appear at the location but wouldn't negotiate. Time will tell if we ever find out the truth.

The headline is a bit misleading. The article elaborates some, for example:

In other remarks, Crosetto said that if Russian troops were to occupy Kyiv, it would "inevitably lead to a clash with other nations, which would not accept Russian tanks on their borders."

European nations have been voicing the need of peace from the beginning, it's just that the negotiating third parties can't get Russia to participate in a dialogue. Which leads to desperate stuff like France asking for China to do their part (desperate because they'd need some unlikely deal incentive to flip).