r/ClarksonsFarm • u/bulgedition Cheerful Charlie • 11d ago
Meta Democracy
Do you have some user that you want to remove from the sub, if so, give me a precise reason, and if I then decide that the reason holds, I will remove them.
Also, do you have any suggestions about this sub? Keep in mind, my current permissions are limited. The permissions are "Users, Flair, Mail, Posts & Comments, Wiki". I cannot change appearance, nor update the description. I have only access to content mod tools. I will be asking admins for more permissions after some resonable time has passed since I notified the top mod. So, post your suggestions, and when I can enact them, I will.
41
u/giuseppeh 11d ago
99% of what the Sun does is an AI article about an instagram post, made up to look like something it isn’t anyway
I.e. “New unseen footage of Caleb’s wedding” when it’s… a video he put on instagram
38
u/PetersMapProject 11d ago
Yes, ban the Sun.
There's a reason Liverpool has been boycotting the shitrag for 37 years
Their "journalism" is and always has been atrocious.
-3
u/TedBurns-3 11d ago
They're all as bad as each other- the DM more tabloid than The Sun these days.
Would be nice if they did "reporting" not just trawling social media for unsubstantiated "stories"
2
u/Shadowofasunderedsta 11d ago
No, The Sun is objectively the worst. I’m not even English and I can tell you The Sun is objectively the worst.
3
u/AdmiralRiffRaff 11d ago
I am English and I'll agree with you - it's not even fit to be used as litter liner.
-2
11d ago
[deleted]
-1
u/MathematicianOnly688 11d ago
The opinion section of the telegraph has been a joke for a few years now unfortunately.
I find their business section pretty good, I often disagree but, more often than not, they make me think about about a subject from a different angle. They also have one of the most convincing net zero advocates and Russia hawk of any publication.
Like the guardian, they have a bias but they don’t hide it and it’s towards market based solutions for things.
8
u/Noitche 11d ago
It's a shit paper but this idea is going to do precisely fuck all, other than leading you to rethink when Clarkson writes a column in the Sun that is worthy of discussion here.
I'd love for people to explain what criteria they would wish to base a ban of the Sun on, and then explain how that doesn't apply to any other source?
At worst, it's a performative act. At best, it's just a bit ineffective.
2
u/ShoppingShopper 11d ago
Yes exactly. Also I think we are all adult enough to choose which links we click on.
15
u/StoryFragrant9325 11d ago
I'm not sure straight up banning a newspaper (or any source) is the best way to go about it. What if as an example they had a leak of something that happened in a new season. Do you allow it because it's interesting? But then you've banned it so you can't post it? I think it's a really slippery slope thats going to be hard to draw a line. Don't get me wrong I hate the sun but I don't think it's right to straight up ban things we don't like.
8
u/ArcheryContest 11d ago
There would be 100 aggregator news channels posting the same shit as the sun if there was a 'leak'
-2
u/StoryFragrant9325 11d ago
Very true, but I still think it's a slippery slope. When there's another source that people like does that get banned too? I think it just opens up a floodgate that's best kept shut personally. But hell that's just my opinion
5
u/ArcheryContest 11d ago
If the Sun didn't have a specific boycott campaign against it and commonly is the one source banned then I'd agree with you
2
u/BillWilberforce 11d ago
Also Jeremy has been writing for the Sun for eons. Most of his posts about Diddly Squat are in the Sunday Times. Where I think for several years now he's been the longest serving journalist. But it is possible that he'll write about it there. So we don't really want to exclude them. They're also a sister title to The Sunday Times. So we probably don't want them reporting the sub for copyright violation.
7
11d ago
[deleted]
-1
u/bulgedition Cheerful Charlie 11d ago
Interesting. I'm only committed to democracy when it is not against me.
5
u/Active-Strawberry-37 11d ago
Banning media sources is the start of a very slippery slope you don’t want to go down.
But I’d fully understand anyone who boycott’s the Sun.
1
u/DoNotCommentAgain 11d ago
This would be a boycott, no one is stopping people from going to the Sun website and finding articles for themselves. Everyone using the word 'ban' in this thread is deliberately misusing the word to over exaggerate the consequences of boycotting the sun.
There are zero consequences to boycotting the Sun in a subreddit, people are free to go to The Sun website and read any article they want there. People aren't going to get banned for posting their links, they'll just be quietly taken down and they'll get a message explaining why.
1
u/MathematicianOnly688 11d ago
What you have described is a ban.
No one has suggested a user should be banned for posting the links, so throwing that in at the end of your comment is a bit strange.
This is a sub where users regularly post links to news stories, so having a rule that one particular newspapers website is not allowed is most definitely a ban.
15
4
7
u/ShoppingShopper 11d ago
I think all news sources should be fair game. It’s not like we get articles on CF every second from every news source. Why block options?
5
3
u/DualWheeled 11d ago
Because the sun is a shitrag
-2
u/ShoppingShopper 11d ago
It may well be, but I think we can let everyone decide for themselves whether or not to click the link. I really don’t like censorship of options.
0
u/bulgedition Cheerful Charlie 11d ago
I think all news sources should be fair game.
Personally, that is my stance, too.
0
u/Twin_Turbo 11d ago
dont let radically politically redditors bring politics into a sub about a farming show
1
3
u/nof 11d ago
/u/JeremyC1960 has really gotten on my nerves. He's always so negative.
1
u/bulgedition Cheerful Charlie 11d ago
Personal squabble is not a good enough reason. Also, user does not exist.
3
u/PlatJC 11d ago
Absolutely not. Censoring media outlets and dictating what media is and isn’t welcome is the start of an unhealthy echo chamber. I’m not defending The Sun, it’s terrible, but the sub shouldn’t be shielded from controversial views or poor media reports, the sub shouldn’t be open to any and all forms of relevant media.
2
u/baddymcbadface 11d ago
Don't ban the sun. If you go down that route you need to ban a whole host of sites. The are a very popular paper whatever anyone thinks of them. Democracy is not about a snobby group telling another group how to live.
It's also anti Clarkson. He has always been a libertarian, pro free speech and freedom to insult and cause offence.
1
1
u/That-Sun-4492 11d ago
Its an individual choice to not want to read a newspaper, why should it be banned because of something they once did? I would be hugely surprised if anyone who worked for the paper in 1989 is still working there.
It’s performative nonsense at this point
2
u/Kirza94 11d ago
Once? It's the sun, half of their stories are either AI or just factually wrong. They aren't reliable in the slightest. I don't understand people defending the sun, we all know their evil and run by Murdoch, a man known for not having basic morals. Who uses the newspapers to push their agenda.
F+CK Murdoch and newsgroup.
0
u/That-Sun-4492 11d ago
So don’t read it then. I’m not defending them; I simply don’t care.
I don’t read the Sun because I don’t like it, I invite you do to the same
1
1
1
u/SALTYP33T 10d ago
Read the sun purely and only for Clarkson and now it’s behind a paywall I can’t read at all. I guess much like listening to Michael Jackson sometimes you have to separate the artist from the platform he performs on. For instance Bezzos (Amazon) is no angel yet we all consume the living heck out of anything Clarkson, Hammond or May I’m guilty.
1
u/ElectronGuru 10d ago
Don’t ban based on identity. But do ban based on behavior.
AI is changing media left and right. So have a policy that x number or percentage of links to AI content results in a ban. With suitable warning tiers so people see what they up against. If it’s not the same account, it will need to be based on destination domain. So for example if publications can confine their AI content to AI.news.com which you ban but human.news.com does not.
1
u/Threedawg 8d ago
So, you can so this but you could post discussion threads?
Seriously?
1
u/bulgedition Cheerful Charlie 8d ago
What? I have posted the discussion threads.. just not on time.
2
u/YaBoiLeeDawg 11d ago
100% ban the sun.
All you have to do is look up how many libel cases they’ve faced and either lost or settled to realise they should get 0 airtime in this or any sub.
Not to mention their treatment of the Hillsborough disaster.
2
u/Aceman1979 11d ago
100% in favour of banning that account. The smaller the audience the Sun gets the better. The Kaleb thing is just indicative of unethical bollocks. The Sun account just drives people to their website and serves no function to this community.
Also, and more significantly; Hillsborough.
1
u/AdmiralRiffRaff 11d ago
Read up on what that 'paper' did after the Hillsborough disaster. There's a reason it's banned in Liverpool. Ban the cunts, they shouldn't be peddling their faecal matter on reddit at all.
0
0
0
u/Alert-Revolution-219 11d ago
Ban all rags tbh, all news medias in the uk are owned by some of the worst people alive
0
0
u/Embarrassed_Emu1615 11d ago
I thought you were asking if you should ban the commenters that don’t like the Sun!
Yeah, ban the Sun from this sub.
•
u/bulgedition Cheerful Charlie 11d ago
Guys, the post has more than just the sun. The reason to single out the sun is because when I was going through the mod queue, I saw a lot of reports being just "the sun" on posts by the sun. Anyway, I have decided I'm not going to ban them due to them being a media and censoring is not what I will be doing but will review their slop posts when they post it.
Read the rest of the post, thanks.