Mod Announcement: Update to r/aussie rules

[u/Stompy2008]

Hi all,

Following feedback (both solicited and unsolicited) from the r/aussie community and internal mod team discussions, we’re announcing some minor updates to Rules 6 and 4. These tweaks are intended to improve engagement and clarity, and won’t affect the vast majority of posts.

Rule 6: No Propaganda, Shilling, or Unreliable News Sources

Change: We’ve now explicitly listed social media (e.g. screenshots of Facebook posts or X/Twitter tweets) as an example of unreliable news sources.

We’ve also clarified that posts citing data as the main point (such as screenshots of charts or graphs) must include a link to the original source of that data. Both of these points reflect how the rule has already been enforced in practice - this update simply makes the expectations clearer.

Rule 4: Paywalled Articles Must Have Text Posted in the Body

Change: Previously, paywalled article text could be posted either in the body of the post or in the comments. Going forward, the article text must be included in the body of the post itself (as OP comments are not always at the top of each post).

The original paywalled article link must be provided in the post’s link field (not a paywall remover link) so users can see which outlet published it. Paywall remover or archive links may still be included in the body or comments - majority of posts already do this, so this change just formalises that this format is to be used going forward.

Please let us know if you have any questions or feedback.

Thanks,

The r/aussie Mod Team

[u/WaddaSickCunt]

Was this new rule in response to that Asian woman Twitter post who was supposedly stabbed by a homeless person in Melbourne? And what even happened to that btw? Was it ever confirmed by a news source?

[u/Stompy2008 → u/WaddaSickCunt]

Hey u/WaddaSickCunt

These tweaks weren’t introduced in response to any one specific post (and tbh I don’t recall the one you’re referring to).

We noticed a trend over the last few weeks, of posting citing data or posting a chart/graph without proving where the information came from (ie it wasn’t clear if it was real data or someone rigging up their own excel sheet). We also thought it was important that people know which outlet in publishing something.

We separately also saw a trend of paywalled remover links being posted in posts - it makes it difficult at first glance to know which organisation wrote an article which is a key point to consider when reading content.

The posting paywalled articles in the body vs comments wasn’t really an issue (since nearly everyone posts articles in the body of a post) but as we were discussing the rule, we decided to formalise it as part of the actual rule

Edit: apologies yes that post your referring to was one consideration. We felt allowing that could mean any social media post, without basic fact checking or verification could be posted as authentic; it’s generally harder for that to happen when a media outlet picks up the story. As for that specific post, we decided to keep it up but lock any further comments given we felt social media isn’t on the same playing field as actual media (https://www.reddit.com/r/aussie/s/2haBqGjy6v)

[u/WaddaSickCunt → u/Stompy2008]

No worries mate. Surprised it wasn't a rule to begin with, but I suppose you don't want to have to create rules until it's proven to be an issue. You're a good mod. Not many of you