Greetings World News! A couple of us mods from /c/politics have volunteered for tribute and will be helping out on mod duties from here on out! Nice to meet you!
I'll keep this short because you didn't come here to hear me talk ("You're right!")
Job 1 is making the sidebar a little cleaner and easier to follow. I don't want anyone to have any illusion as to why content got removed. It should always be clear and concise and not up for debate.
When it comes to copyrighted material, my opinion is super simple:
- Don't repost the whole article. Boil it down to the 1 or 2 paragraphs that make the point. That falls under fair use.
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/
-
If you can't find the 1 or 2 paragraphs that makes the point, MAYBE that's not the best article to use. 😉 "Brevity is the soul of wit" and all that.
-
None of which matters if you use articles that aren't paygated. If the whole thing is readily available, there's no reason to copy/paste anything. See if you can find an alternate source.
-
If you aren't sure if something falls under fair use or not, assume it doesn't. Err on the side of personal liability. "Could someone catch grief over this?" If yes, don't paste it.
That's it! Happy World Newsing! Verbing weirds language!
Edit OK, I lied. When posting from the web UI, it will helpfully offer to create an archive link of your choice. Archive links ARE allowed. I have cleared this personally with multiple admins now. If it proves to be a copyright issue, we can simply remove the link.
For some reason, my preferred apps, Boost and Voyager, don't have that option. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I find it very convenient to read articles without having to leave Lemmy. The reasons for this:
For these reasons, I always appreciate when someone pulls the whole article, or even parts of it, into Lemmy. I also believe these reasons are shared by many others, which means it makes a more informed comment section when more of the article is readily available.
From the sound of it, I guess you're declaring these rules for legal reasons. I can't change anything about that.
I just wanted to clarify that there are good reasons why many people are happy to avoid opening external sites if possible.
Not necessarily LEGAL reasons, but rather LIABILITY reasons.
"Some people" are getting increasingly bitchy about where and when their content is being used:
https://theintercept.com/2023/09/17/new-york-times-website-internet-archive/
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/26/1166101459/internet-archive-lawsuit-books-library-publishers
We're volunteers and as such just don't have the time, energy, or money to fight it. So the best we can do is point to policy and moderation.
A perfectly fine reason. Respecting and protecting your limits is an important part of volunteering. Thanks for your service!