I am not among those who downvoted, but since you asked, I’ll offer a guess as to why so many people did:
The way you phrased your second sentence, it could be interpreted to mean that you consider the story to be inappropriate here. Perhaps some people (especially those who read Lemmy while in a hurry) thought that was what you meant. It could have been made more clear if you had written, “this was reported…”.
This story is relevant to people all over the world, while the complaint you received was that it concerns a US company. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. I believe more than a few members of this community, maybe even most, recognize that fact, and find it unacceptable for their news channel to obstruct information that concerns them just because the source happens to be in the US.
To be clear, the rule here forbids “United States Internal News”. The rule does not forbid “News emerging from the United States”. Since the policies of a major global reference source like Wikipedia are clearly not US internal news, some community members surely recognize that flagging it for removal was inappropriate. I happen to share this view, and this is not an isolated incident.
Once in the past, I submitted a scientific report, and it was removed here on the grounds that the scientists were in the US. The post was not “United States Internal News” and did not break any of the community’s rules. It was scientific research, without geographic or political boundaries. It was relevant to everyone. And yet it was denied visibility to us, the members here. I found that absurd, and deeply concerning: This community, which positions itself as a global information source, was filtering out information in a way that we have come to expect from state-owned media in authoritarian regimes. And it was presuming to treat scientific research as though it were somehow invalid just because it had been done in the US.
Edit:
In any case, I hope this helps you to understand some likely reasons why your comment received downvotes.
Those of us who have walked in the moderator’s shoes for long enough will come to understand that sometimes it’s the complaint that is misguided, not the target of the complaint, and that broadcasting such complaints (as you did here) gives them an air of validity that they do not deserve.
Response to your edit:
I am not among those who downvoted, but since you asked, I’ll offer a guess as to why so many people did:
The way you phrased your second sentence, it could be interpreted to mean that you consider the story to be inappropriate here. Perhaps some people (especially those who read Lemmy while in a hurry) thought that was what you meant. It could have been made more clear if you had written, “this was reported…”.
This story is relevant to people all over the world, while the complaint you received was that it concerns a US company. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. I believe more than a few members of this community, maybe even most, recognize that fact, and find it unacceptable for their news channel to obstruct information that concerns them just because the source happens to be in the US.
To be clear, the rule here forbids “United States Internal News”. The rule does not forbid “News emerging from the United States”. Since the policies of a major global reference source like Wikipedia are clearly not US internal news, some community members surely recognize that flagging it for removal was inappropriate. I happen to share this view, and this is not an isolated incident.
Once in the past, I submitted a scientific report, and it was removed here on the grounds that the scientists were in the US. The post was not “United States Internal News” and did not break any of the community’s rules. It was scientific research, without geographic or political boundaries. It was relevant to everyone. And yet it was denied visibility to us, the members here. I found that absurd, and deeply concerning: This community, which positions itself as a global information source, was filtering out information in a way that we have come to expect from state-owned media in authoritarian regimes. And it was presuming to treat scientific research as though it were somehow invalid just because it had been done in the US.
Edit:
In any case, I hope this helps you to understand some likely reasons why your comment received downvotes.
Those of us who have walked in the moderator’s shoes for long enough will come to understand that sometimes it’s the complaint that is misguided, not the target of the complaint, and that broadcasting such complaints (as you did here) gives them an air of validity that they do not deserve.