/r/newzealand is often remembered as having negative vibes, and tons of complaining. I think the major contributor to those bad vibes are the clickbait / ragebait articles from Stuff and NZ Herald.
For some reason people kept upvoting them, even though the articles clearly never added anything of worth. The discussions around the content didn’t go anywhere, and were often just people having a whinge.
Is there a way to filter them out on Lemmy?
Edit: The way I filter them out is by blocking anyone that posts links, but there might be another way.
You must log in or register to comment.
Personally I don’t think further fragmenting an already tiny community further is helpful
You can certainly not click on them or block people that post them but I really don’t think the (glances at sidebar) 91 people that have used this instance in the past 6 months are really enough to further fragment.
Personally I don’t think further fragmenting an already tiny community further is helpful
I agree which is why I don’t think allowing ragebait is a wise move.
I think we should have a written rule that, where possible, Radio NZ or other high quality sources should be used, however they don’t cover every story. Sometimes they’re necessary if you want to prompt a discussion on a topic.
I think we should encourage people to write their own content and title. Add references to any of the bigger outlets covering the story for a fuller less baited discussion.
So long as people don’t editorialise even further. This used to happen a lot on r/nz before a rule was put in place to stop it
Yeah I get the concern, but also if I wanted to read nzhorror I would. I’m not so down on hearing peoples takes on a story so long as it’s in good faith & not lazy.
however they don’t cover every story
That’s because some stories are not worth covering and don’t contribute to constructive discussion.
On a similar note, as a NZer currently residing overseas, it would be nice if articles linked from newshub are provided with an alternative text, as its not available to those outside NZ
I’m a big fan of scraping the article text so we don’t need to wade through the cancer of auto playing videos, cookie faux-consent and whatnot
I think people do enjoy seeing them, and having the opportunity to vent. But I also get what you’re saying, these articles often misrepresent the situation, or are written in a way that is intended to cause outrage.
I’m keen to hear from others about what they want. Do we want a !news community? Do we want to avoid ragebait articles? Do we want a !ragebait community (please no)?
If we moved news to !news, what kind of content would we want in !newzealand?
deleted by creator
I didn’t really think a rule to ban ragebait articles would be a goer. It was a bit of a ragebait comment :P
Perhaps it would be good to have a stronger enforcement of the “please put politics in !politics” rule.
What would this look like? A quick peruse through !newzealand doesn’t seem to show any that are obviously politics, while looking through !politics shows posts that are clearly political party related.
If we were to move the line for what is considered politics, what would that look like?
deleted by creator
Anything that impacts society can be read as political if you get to this level. So anything contentious would be off the table. I’m not necessarily disagreeing, just trying to think of what would be left and how much effort it would be to enforce.
deleted by creator
The problem is there are times where there is actually valid and new information on those sources… the unfortunate thing is their intertwined with rage bait or click bait. I don’t think it’d be productive to ban them when the community is so small at the moment.
I think the solution on this one is to smash that downvote button, comment about how low our standards of journalistic ethics have slipped, and if you really don’t want to see it, block the people posting it.
Speaking for myself, if I get feedback in comments that the things I’m sharing are not welcome, I’ll stop sharing them, easy as.
Mine is possibly an unpopular opinion but to me it’s seemed that a person’s view of whether something is clickbait can often depend a lot on what they think of the topic generally. There’s lots of crap posted in r/nz but, imho, it’s often more in the discussions in r/nz than in the articles being linked to which could be legit and comparatively reasonable for publication in media.
I think social media doesn’t necessarily help itself, either. Sometimes stories can make a lot of sense in the context that a newspaper or website editor has originally published them. Maybe it’s printed nearby other related articles that explore different angles or add more context, or as part of a series of alternative opinions intended to give readers multiple perspectives, or buried in a section that in that publication’s context would normally only be explored by people looking for very specific stuff rather than on a front page.
If you choose only to get your media with intermittent deep links served up by a social media portal, though, then not only is that context often lost, but we also often prioritise just reading a discrete and isolated headline before being directed into a stream of comments telling us what to think about something we’ve not even read.
Newshub is infinitely worse.
