I don’t understand why type of submission you’re describing. Do you mean stuff like a direct link to a SCOTUS opinion or an annual BLS report? That’s not at all what we were discussing. Somehow you’ve shifted the entire conversation. Before we were talking about relevancy of topic, and now you’re talking about what type of article can be posted. I don’t know if you responded to the wrong comment, but I’m very confused and not sure how to respond to you.

Do you have any thoughts regarding the issue of relevancy and how that relates to an “attempt to manipulate the sorts of political discussions” that take place on this sub? You made a pretty bold claim, and I’d like to see what support you have for that.

Also, it’s ridiculous to expect links to direct sources to be an effective springboard for layperson discussion. Even ignoring the fact that some primary sources, like 1200-page budget bills, will simply not be read by any Reddit user, interpretation by professionals is an invaluable resource. Media literacy allows us to consume interpreted information in a responsible way that doesn’t always mean looking at direct sources.

Finally, the rule doesn’t require that all sources have interpretation. A factual article that just lists the instances of gun violence over time, for example, would be relevant to current US politics and wouldn’t be barred by the new relevancy rule. So, again, I simply don’t understand your argument. You have either misunderstood the new rule completely or I’m missing something.