this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
331 points (96.4% liked)

News

37978 readers
2051 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bikesarethefuture@programming.dev 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Don't forget car companies and oil lobby will fight it really hard so we can keep burning our planet

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We should tax busniess who could have workers WFH but don't let them to cover the societal costs they impose lien traffic and pollution

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Just require employers to pay for 60 minutes of travel time a day every time employees have to go to the office no matter where the employee lives and you'll see they'll start sweating.

[–] Rozz@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 years ago
[–] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I would almost* like to see that litigated again. Last time the argument was "people have had to travel to their workplace before starting since time immemorial, so no change now"

But now that for many jobs the work location is arbitrary that argument wont be so easy.

*"Almost" since the money would still be on the other side

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I wish we didn't need these things to go to court for them to change, but it would require an extremely progressive government in power for that to happen in any country...

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Government doesn't help much with court, except where they change the law

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That's what I meant, why should we need to go to court to get that right recognized when it should be the government changing the law without court intervention?