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
view the rest of the comments
This article reeks of MAHA "naturalistic" bullshit.
Not necessarily. It is known that some vitamins can have differing effects depending on whether they're in whole food form, or in a supplement.
Haven't read the article yet, but my suspicion would be more correlation than causation. Those industrially manufactured ascorbic acids virtually always end up in highly processed foods, and that's what is more likely the main harm.
Go right to the actual scientific article. It doesn't seem to include this sort of nonsense. It's a seemingly well put together but herculean effort to try to study this. They do a nice job controlling for known covariables, but it's very possible they are missing a linked factor. Using this as a basis for a randomized study with these chemicals would be truly interesting.
I beg to differ. From the manuscript:
This is probably where the science writer derived this from. This is so much clearer though that it's not the origin of the compound that matters so much as the environment it is in.
Yes but they still say that:
Vs
And that
So it’s not like the part the writer talked about wasn’t almost literally mentioned in the paper.
They are also just quoting the senior author, since the part of the article the guy you replied to omitted was:
Scientific papers will always be dumbed down a bit and information will be omitted when writing an article for the general public.
The guy you replied to simply doesn’t know what he is talking about and thinks he knows better than the senior author.
Aye - the article is hot garbage. Science reporting is a complete mess.
Yep.
Entirely because people try to sensationalize it to make it interesting and exciting, and usually jump on it before theres even been other studies to confirm the results or not.
Which results in a lot of fatigue.. Like how people are, to this day, still confused about if eggs or good or bad because the flood of studies in the 90s, each contradicting eachother about eggs being good, eggs being bad, this part of the egg being good, that part being bad, etc etc.
Running interference for the corporate food industry, of course. Don't sue them, let them reduce their liability first.