I was responding to your claim that you can “usually” tell when English isn’t someone’s first language. You can’t. Unless every comment also states whether English is their native language, there’s no way you can know this. It’s likely there are a ton of people who aren’t native speakers that you don’t detect because they write well enough. Plenty of people are fluent in a second language.

Lol dude. Plenty of people who speak English as a second language can speak (and write!) fluently and “naturally” with few errors.

This is confirmation bias. You assume anyone who writes a certain way online is a native speaker, but you have no way of actually knowing that unless they explicitly say so.

While I agree with that definition of world news, I’m not sure the approach of siloing everything unless it hits a global threshold is the way to go, either. Personally, I appreciate seeing a smattering of events happening elsewhere, even if they’re not necessarily globally important. It’s an easy way to get exposure to things happening outside of my immediate bubble and I think it gives me a better global reference point generally. However, if “non-world news” were to be relegated to their respective local communities, I’m probably not going to attempt to go out and follow dozens of local communities just to see those stories; I will likely just miss out on those perspectives entirely and I doubt I’m the only one.

Damn, I just assumed they were screening to ensure real users acting in good faith. Didn’t expect them to actually be rejecting people.

Glad to see them saying as “thousands.” Yesterday I saw a headline (can’t remember where) that claimed “hundreds” which felt disingenuous, regardless of how you feel about the protest.