There are some communities where the vast majority of posts are by on or two users reposting news articles.
Sometimes they’ll summarize below, but they will almost never share their opinions on the article, or even just ask what others may think about in regards to this aspect or that aspect. So the entire feed is just URLs.
I would feel more engaged to comment on those posts, or even start a post in the community, when it doesn’t feel like a bunch of robots reposting the daily slop.
Depends on the community. If it’s a news community, then posters should not inject their personal opinions on the post itself and post articles as is. If they have an opinion, then they can add a comment afterwards.
Bingo. We’re better than cable news (or, we should at least try to be lol. It’s not a very high bar).
If the community is purely about news, sure. Most aren’t though, and I think in that case, the poster should always be the first ones to strike discussion.
Well, you can just not follow the communities you don’t like, and let them be.
I mean, I don’t like that either, but preaching about what people should do is too much.
Well, you can just not follow the communities you don’t like, and let them be.
I’d have to leave basically all of them, lol. I’m arguing against standard practice.
That’s what the comment section is for 😐
I disagree. There are some communities I go to specifically for the discussion. If I’m reading news, I want it as un-biased as possible. I don’t care what the OP’s views on the subject are; I just want to know what’s going on in the world. If I’m reading news on Lemmy, it’s because I’d rather see relevant articles here than try to wade through a pile of bullshit on a major news service about what famous person is fucking who.
I disagree. You might as well say you can’t upvote or downvote without posting your opinion. Consider the post an upvote for the article.
Some people want to post content, some people want to comment, some people want to vote, some people want to lurk, and some people don’t care. Having to publicly state your opinion would create a barrier to posting news articles that would kill the community… There will hardly be anything to comment, vote, or lurk on.
If you want a community where people post news and their opinions - and have to do both - start one, and unsubscribe from the communities you don’t like.
would kill the community
I’m of the opposite belief. I think some communities stay dead bc there’s just one person constantly posting articles with zero input. I avoid these “zombie” communities. Regular dead communities are more enticing to post in for me.
start one, and unsubscribe from the communities you don’t like.
This would create even more fracturing, which is already a big problem here.
If you do end up finding or making a community like the one you want, I suggest you make it so the poster’s opinion is added in comments not in the post itself. Otherwise it becomes impossible to distinguish between votes for the article and votes for the comment. It’s already bad enough that you can’t distinguish between votes for the newsworthiness/quality/source of an article vs the feelings on the content.
Take this article as a case in point: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/11159076
What are people downvoting? Is the article not worthy of being news? Is the article from a bad news source? Do people dislike what happened in the case? Or are people downvoting the poster’s commentary?
In my opinion that article should be sitting at a positive score as news, so it is visible to more people and available for discussion.
(looks at !iowa@lemmy.world that I mod) I feel personally attacked…
Seriously, I get what you’re saying. I do it because I don’t have anything meaningful to say when nobody else is posting, but I want the community to not die.
👀 (Looks at my West Virginia community withering away)
but I want the community to not die.
I understand this, but
I don’t have anything meaningful to say
Could this not be true for everyone else? Someone needs to start the discussion. Otherwise it will just stay dead. Imo it’s better to either leave it or come up with at least something.
I mean lemmy is a link aggregator, that also happens to have a forum attached to it.
That’s referring to the fediverse.
Pedantic, but this is a rant opinion post so ┐( ˘_˘)┌
This is not the ‘controversial opinion’ sub ;)
What they should do is post articles then make the most outages claims so that people feel the necessity to comment.
BTW, Trump deserves to win the presidency. He is by far the most honest.
The articles that they post are so often low quality slop with absolutely no soucing for their outrageous claims.
I agree. We are here for the discussion.
And they give us an article to have a discussion about. They need to feed us talking points as well?
The article itself always does. Always. Why not let the linker poison the well, too?
They always can. I don’t see the point of it being mandatory a person who posts an article give their opinion on it. His complaint seems to be he’s mad that he seen an article without a comment already on it? Basically all articles end up commented on anyways. Why does it need to be mandatory there is at least 1 more?
Basically all articles end up commented on anyways.
No. Small communities do not get this feature, and it is my belief that they stay small because (a) no one is willing to make the first comment and (b) the feed is just full of new dead posts, or “zombie” posts.
At least that’s in my case. I get this urked feeling and leave the community whenever the feed feels “zombie”. Not the case when it’s just dead.
Why would people be unwilling to make the first post? Never really heard of that before. Also if that’s the case… Why don’t you just make the first post? Be the change you want to see in the world dude.
It’s better to share links then it is for everyone to constantly substitute the article with their spin on it. Youtube has turned into thousands of “commentators” summarizing the original article with their personal opinions. One could argue that it amounts to content theft.
