Schadenfreude is now banned. And many other political posts of similar nature are banned too. Low quality and fake news is also banned. - Lemmy.World

It has been 15 days since the post about future of politics in this community [https://lemmy.world/post/30118030] was made, and results are somewhat clear - 35 (39 - 4) in favor of no poltics vs 4 (7 - 3) in favor of poltical natured posts. If I use politcal lingo, this would be a landslide victory of no politics faction. “What does this mean”? Who is “We”? I am speakinng currently for collective group of moderators, and also the community itself (as in, we do not do that here). We are banning schadenfreude [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude] - which roughly translates to feeling joy at someone else’s misfortune. What that means is, if there is someone who you (or a lot of people) do not like gets some disease which they could not have planned for (for example cancer), then this is not a uplifting news. If they are making losses, that is not uplifting. If they are depressed, that is not uplifting. We will not be retroactively actively removing posts, but future posts of this nature will be deleted as per understanding of moderators or community (by means of votes or reports). We are also banning politics. That by itself is a statement political in nature. Everything is political but what we are banning is the more clearer mainstream politics. We do not really want to know if this group we do not like lost/won somewhere. But what is acceptable is, for example, some good person (good because other things they have done in life) is awarded something. This can be political in nature (example, a nobel prize), and there is no clear way to put in words what is and is not allowed. If yoou have a better method to express this, then please add in comments. More clarification - we are not banning news which maybe political in nature, but which is toxic politics. if there is a news which is political, lets say some marginalised group got better rights, that is allowed, or even welcomed. Think simple - if you can tell some small kid the news, and they feel good, then it is uplifting. It should not require you to know what the person has done in past. If something bad happens to a bad person, then that is still bad, it does not become uplifting for a kid. this example by itself also has flaws, and I am still unable to word it well. But I hope the spirit of rule is clearer. no toxicity. We are also banning low effort news or fake news. This could be news which is not adding anything new at all or is a copy of a copy of a copy (and bad one). Please try to fetch original sources. This is just to maintain a standard. This does not restrict you from posting a news which is targeted at a small group, or is published by a small group which may not be publishing a very fancy, furnished looking posts. Essentially - a no fluff rule.