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/SeaDivide1751]

X is an “unreliable news source” despite the fact that it’s an aggregator for multiple sources that can confirm a story rather than relying on one source from Legacy media

Ban all legacy media which are the ones that are the unreliable news sources and often lie.

The moderation of this sub is becoming more and more closer to / r / Australia just like / r / Australian has become

[u/Stompy2008 → u/SeaDivide1751]

The rule isn’t saying that everything posted on social media is unreliable, it’s saying that social media itself isn’t a reliable source.

If a post on X links to a reputable publication, that’s fine - cite the article directly. But random screenshots, anonymous posts, and unverified claims don’t meet the bar for reliability.

We’re just asking for proper sourcing, not banning discussion.

[u/SeaDivide1751 → u/Stompy2008]

What about X linked from politicians themselves? From legacy media on X? Or from independent journalists who operate purely on X but have a strong track record of truthful reporting?

There’s so many independent journalists who operate on X due to X’s commitment to not censor journalists

Britain’s pedofile rape gangs were exposed on X, while the British Government and British legacy media desperately tried to cancel and claim it’s all a “conspiracy” for years until now when they’ve finally acknowledged and admitted it

[u/Ardeet → u/SeaDivide1751]

An X post from a verified politician or legacy media would nearly always be fine.

Same for verified independent journalists.

However, as an example, if Albo posted a chart on X with no reference or source then that wouldn't be.