994
Does this plan make sense? v2
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
994 points (91.3% liked)
General Discussion
11995 readers
2 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy.World General!
This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.
🪆 About Lemmy World
🧭 Finding Communities
Feel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!
Also keep an eye on:
- !newcommunities@lemmy.world
- !communitypromo@lemmy.ca
- !new_communities@mander.xyz
- !communityspotlight@lemmy.world
- !wowthislemmyexists@lemmy.ca!
For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse and Feddit Lemmy Community Browser!
💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca - Note this is for more serious discussions.
- !casualconversation@lemm.ee - The opposite of the above, for more laidback chat!
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk - Into video games? Here's a place to discuss them!
- !movies@lemm.ee - Watched a movie and wanna talk to others about it? Here's a place to do so!
Rules
Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.
0. See: Rules for Users.
- No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
- Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
- Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to !fediverse@lemmy.world or !lemmydrama@lemmy.world communities.
- No Ads/Spamming.
- No NSFW content.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
While this is true, I probably should have added additional context as it may be lobbying but differ in the way lobbying is currently done.
It would preferably be someone currently working in acedemia as well as holding an office (state or federally) subject to a code of ethics etc. With prerequisites within the field of question.
Now each judge or policy maker having their own expertise would be ideal, it's not really practical/feasible at this time. It's not necessarily lobbying in it's entirety that's an issue more so how it's done currently.
One could argue any person with any statement to a judge or policy maker (I'm context) classifies as lobbying since they are trying to sway the decision in their way. So by definition there's not really a way around "lobbying" but we can mitigate the (effectively) statement bribes we have screwing our system