Edit: Even MBFC rates dropsitenews as a reliable source https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drop-site-news-bias-and-credibility/
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
There is no rule about ‘blog sites’ on worldnews. Jordanlund has made this up and proceeds to classify anything he does not like as a 'blog '.
Reading the comments here is a treat.
tl;dr Jordan dude may not be a Zionist, but their refusal to acknowledge a legitimate news source, even though it fields an array of veteran investigative journalists, formerly from The Intercept, just because it uses Substack under the hood, which they equate to WordPress (which is another platform used by big publications) makes them a PTB.
It gets even worse down below.
In order to defend MBFC Jordan starts calling MondoWeiss antisemitic. Jordan quotes Zionist lobby sources to back up his claims, without any evidence of the antisemitism accusations except hearsay. Then refuses to engage when pressed on the issue.
And even go on another anti blm rant
“We only allow reputable news sources! Now excuse me while I repeat a bunch of misinformation about BLM.”
- jordanlund
it’s not misinformation if the mbfc says it is a good source
Beyond the publicly known political preference of the mod, I think it’s strange that a community on a social media site built on activitypub would have a blanked policy against the posting of other self-published news sources, irrespective of the authors and journalists and their proven reputation.
That said, my take on lemmy moderation has always been JDS, or ‘just decentralize, stupid’. We’re not reddit, and we don’t want to be like reddit, so we shouldn’t be going out of our way to centralize communities or complain when we don’t like the moderation choices or rules of a community we think ought to be managed differently.
Bruh its Jordan. Worst mod around. Just par for the course.
In India, Lund = Dick.
Username checks out
Oh yeah fuck that guy. What a chode.
We’ve been over this.
Anyone can set up a Substack blog. It’s not a valid source. Same with Blogger, same with Medium.
If it gets posted through a legitmate news source, it’s 100% welcome.
Blog sites aren’t news.
Substack is not a blogging platform. You can host a blog using Substack, but not every site built using Substack is a blog.
Dropsitenews is clearly not a blog. That should be immediately evident if you open the website. The about-page also clearly explains how they are an independent news organization with reputable journalists working for it. Even MBFC classifies them as a news organization.
If your argument is “it’s a substack website so it’s a blog, but a completely identical-looking website that’s not built using substack isn’t a blog, so it’s allowed”, then you’re not arguing along the lines of rule 1, you’re arguing along the lines of an unwritten rule that is supposed to help reinforce rule 1. If so, it should be explained in the sidebar. The post as-is does not violate rule 1 in any reasonable interpretation. If you have a different argumentation as to why Dropsitenews is a blog, you should provide it so that people know what to expect from the mod team.
If it’s hosted on a blog hosting site, by definition, it’s a blog. It doesn’t matter if it’s substack, blogger, medium, wordpress, what have you. We don’t send traffic to blogs.
And, again, we don’t differentiate because we aren’t going to be drawn into the argument of “but what about this one, but what about that one…”
NO BLOGS!
Substack is not a blogging platform.
Try again. Substack themselves say they’re a newsletter site. It can host blogs but it is not a blog hosting site.
You’re also not addressing the fact that Dropsitenews is not a blog by any definition of the word “blog”.
Then they’re welcome to pony up for a domain registration and detach themselves from a host that also has un-vetted material.
Look, it’s really simple:
There are legit journalists on Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube too… we don’t allow links to those sites EITHER.
This is NO DIFFERENT. We aren’t going through an entire platform, account by account, picking and choosing.
Then they’re welcome to pony up for a domain registration
https://www.dropsitenews.com/ is their domain that they’ve registered through Squarespace?? Hello?
There are legit journalists on Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube too… we don’t allow links to those sites EITHER.
False equivalence. Substack is more similar to Wordpress than it is to Twitter or Medium.
This is NO DIFFERENT. We aren’t going through an entire platform, account by account, picking and choosing.
But it is different, you’ve just elected to plug your ears regarding any and all evidence to the contrary. You don’t have to “pick and choose accounts”, they have their own domain and no other “accounts” on Substack are accessible through it. It’s completely isolated.
This entire charade could easily be solved using a simple domain whitelist/blacklist method, yet you’ve decided that using that simple solution is too difficult, despite plenty of mod teams using this method due to its transparancy and ease of moderation.
Your argumentation so far has been completely detached from the reality here. You are presenting things as facts that are easily refuted by taking a 1-minute look at the website. If you can’t even manage that, then I can’t help you here.
Again, see bottom of page:
Yes congratulations, you’ve discovered they’re using Substack. This was already addressed and not in dispute? . It doesn’t support your argument, because:
-
Substack is not a blogging platform. It’s more like Wordpress in that it can host blogs, but doesn’t exclusively do so, and this website is clearly not a blog.
-
This is the only reference to Substack on the entire website. And this footer isn’t what makes a website a “blog”. I’d wager that if you’d have blocked this footer using uBlock or something you wouldn’t be able to really tell it’s built on Substack.
-
The links listed don’t lead to other accounts, instead they lead to static pages about Substack’s about page or their privacy policy.
-
Dropsitenews is operating through their own domain via Squarespace.
-
Dropsitenews has several independent journalists and editors working for them, and is a news organisation, not a random blog. Their own about page explains this pretty clearly, and other websites (including MBFC) agree with that.
-
Their website does not look functionally different from a news website not built on Substack. The only “functional difference” (and I’m really stretching the definition of the word ‘functional’ here) is the footer you’ve linked that mentions Substack.
I have to reiterate here: nobody is asking you to pick-and-choose what Substack “accounts” to allow or not. I actually fully agree with you that doing that would be a bit of an undue burden, similar to not choosing which Twitter accounts to allow. But that’s just simply not how Dropsitenews or Substack work.
Listen, I’m trying to help you here to either clarify the rules or apply them more consistently. You’re getting a lot of flak now because you’re not applying the rule as written, but through an publicly unknown interpretation where anything built using Substack is (frankly inexplicably) also banned. If that’s how you want to moderate, fine, but clarify it in the rules.
Still, I have to recommend the tried and tested method of white/blacklisting (or allow/denylisting as it’s often called these days). If someone puts up a new post, check the list with Ctrl-F for the domain of the post. If it’s in the allowlist, allow the post, if it’s in the denylist, remove it. Dead simple, takes seconds to do. If it’s not listed, open the website and make a determination if it should be allowed. If so, add to the allowlist, otherwise add to the denylist and list the reason for denial. Takes a minute or so, maybe a couple minutes at worst. Put all this in a publicly viewable Google doc/sheet/whatever and link it in the sidebar. Total transparancy, dead simple to execute and basically impossible to argue against. If you want to put in even less effort, have posters submit why a domain should be allowlisted (you can put specific requirements there like a link to the MBFC rating or whatever) so you can just review the reasons and either allowlist or denylist the domain.
This still lets you blanket-ban Twitter/Facebook/Medium etc… for the stated reason, but helps avoid these issues where you are inconsistently applying the rules and banning a legitimate news organisation.
-
Lol, doesn’t address what they said at all
You bitched that they didn’t register their own domain, the other guy pointed out they did, and you just went back to going “but it’s substack!!!” When they’ve already destroyed your piss ass argument against the platform
And that’s exactly why you can fuck off.
Drop Site is not a simple “substack blog.” It’s a new project created and run by journalists/founders from The Intercept who parted ways because of their mismanagement. Everyone including the journalist who shared this article has extensive experience as a professional journalist and bylines with major publications.
Is Time a blog because it runs on Wordpress?
Oh whoa, this is a really good point.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drop-site-news-bias-and-credibility/
High credibility, mostly factual.
Blog, we don’t allow blogs.
IDK what I expected lol…
It is not a blog. I understand you along with the rest of LW mods are incapable of admitting error or saying anything along the lines of “Oh, you’re right, it’s clearly a professional news organization with credentials from the exact agency we have chosen to vet our news organizations, I didn’t realize that, we can allow it going forward.” So I won’t make the futile effort to expect that of you.
If they don’t want to be associated with blogs, they’re free to register a domain and go fully independent.
A domain like dropsitenews.com?
Nope! See bottom of page:
Is WordPress a blog?
WordPress is more of an editor than a blog. But because just anyone can set up a Wordpress site, we’e block that too.
So you block the New York Times, Time, Bloomberg, Wired, Vogue?
No, because they aren’t hosted on Wordpress. Different deal.
Personally though, if I were making the rules? I would block NYT, Wired, and others because of the paywall bullshit. It’s a wasted click to just get a paywall.
This is an absolutely braindead lazy take.
The same professional journalists who’ve worked at these big media corporations have used the substack platform to open up sites in droves so they can focus on more niche topics, or just escape the censorship of owners and advertisers.
If you think that legitimate news can only come from a company owned by billionaires, then you’re wrong.
Once they start writing for a reputable source again, we’ll be happy to link to them. We aren’t linking to blog sites.
Again, because we aren’t going to be drawn into the debate of “Why did you allow THAT Blogger site but not MY bullshit blogspam site?”
We aren’t going to manually vet 10,000 blog sites, twitter accounts, facebook pages, reddit posts, Instagrams, etc. etc.
The only FAIR way to do it is what we’re doing now: “No, not a valid source. Find a legitimate source.”
Once they start writing for a reputable source again,
… THEY WERE ASSASSINATED.
The person posting their last story to Znews was not.
See the link in [email protected]
I’m with you here. News sites will mirror this to confirm its legitimacy, and that should be linked, not the substack.
People don’t like it, but man, I would love it if Lemmy preserves information hygiene as it grows.
Yeah, the mods of both News and Politics went through this with the Luigi manifesto. We just had to remove all of it until an actual news agency vetted it.
News agencies don’t verify shit anymore, one takes the bait and the other ones just parrot it to infinity trying to be the first ones to get to their audience’s clicks
There are different links that have his last article.
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/hossam-shabat-journalist-killed-gaza-last-article
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hossam-shabat-s-last-article/ar-AA1BDeXT
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/outrage-as-israel-kills-another-truthteller/
Dropsite is another Substack blog and would be removed.
MSN might be tricky because they basically steal content with a link forwarder. Looks like, in this case, they’re ripping off ZNetwork:
https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/hossam-shabats-last-article/
Znetwork is solid, MSN? Eh, I’d treat it as a link forwarder and remove it.
Jewish Voice For Labor looks good though!
Dropsite is another Substack blog and would be removed.
I would say if you are removing dropsite, the rule is missing the forest through the trees. I get the need to have standards.
I think we can all acknowledge that we live on a shifting plane of mediums and media, and really, we are seeing a resurgence of what I would call “blog-type” news sites. This has coincided with an almost complete collapse of where most of these substackers were formerly employed, eg, digital media companies. Digital media’s collapse isn’t new news, and many of these substacks came about as a direct response to digital media companies going under. Many of these stubstacks are the journalism one would have found at those companies.
I guess the point I want to make is that being a legacy media site doesn’t a valid news source make, nor does a news outlet which is effectively a single/ small group of journalists not valid news it make.
And especially in the context of the near total collapse of digital media over the previous 4 years, by insisting things be from effectively legacy digital media sources, we’re really winnowing down the options, from even, a year ago. It would seem like editing and fact checking, and abiding by some set of journalistic standards are more important.
The reason we remove all substack blogs is we aren’t going to be drawn into a debate over “Buh, buh, you allowed THEIR link!! Why not miiiiiine!!?!?!?” as I explained in the other PTB thread when this came up.
If it’s a legitimate news source, great! Hats off to you. If it’s not a legitimate news source, it’s getting removed. We don’t care who wrote it.
If the story is ONLY available on bullshit sources and you can’t find it on a reputable news site, you need to step back and ask why rather than yell at the mods.
I know, I’ve been there before… super juicy story broken by… checks notes… “New York Post”, well fuck me, right? Let’s wait a day or so and see if a real paper picks it up.
I get the spirit of the rule and I also agree in the importance of a degree of editorial over site. But like, something like 60-80% of digital media companies that existed 5 years ago are gone. And substack has grown to fill that void.
Its really, really difficult to make the claim that sub-stack isn’t news at this point, when its where like, the news is actually happening.
It seems to me that a list of pre-approved substacks which either a) undergo editorial review, or b) demonstrate that they follow a certain level of journalistic standard. That same standard could be used to put news sources that don’t meet those requirements could be added to a ban-list.
If its a legacy media enterprise, they are assumed editorial until proven to fail in that regard. If its a substack/ blog, they have to demonstrate they do journalism to a certain level of quality.
So like white list for some blogs/ black list for legacy media.
That sort of whitelisting is going to be beyond what a volunteer team is capable of doing. If there’s another source that does something like that on blog pages, we’d be happy to utilize it, but man, look at the grief we continue getting every time we mention “Yeah MBFC marks it as questionable.”
Coming back to this a day later because I was just reading an article about the killing of a dropsite contributor on dropsite, and I realized, they have editors.
So returning here:
Dropsite has it’s own domain.
It has editors.
But you don’t want to allow it because they rely on substack for the underlying publishing technology?
A wiki run to list valid news sources and why they should be listed, that can have discussions in the talk page, might be helpful to address many of these issues.
I used to help mod the largest Reddit news community back in the day, and it was easy to use the approach you talk about.
Now, I doubt I could. The news industry has really collapsed or been nerfed. There are small sites never heard about before doing heavy lifting and they need to be validated in a way it’s easy to use those guidelines in moderation.
To not do that is to either become increasingly reactionary to sources or get in fights about what is or is not valid.
The rule should be about where it is posted if that is the important part.
All the other sites copied it from drop site news; personally I’m ok with a mirror as long as the content is not altered
The rule is explicit: News Articles Only.
Blogs aren’t news articles.
Blog sites aren’t news.
Do you mean “aren’t news sites?”
Because not being a news site and not being news are two different things.
I mean, if you want to be pedantic, sure. News is the plural of “New”. :)
But just because it’s new doesn’t make it news.
I want to be pedantic because it is an important distinction.
If the exact same text credited to the same person is posted on a news site and on substack, but you only consider one of them to be a ‘news article’, then the distinction is important.
But thanks for proving you are a PTB by twisting my extremely clear point into absurd word nonsense.
Correct, because blog sites have no accountability. I could set up a Substack blog, that would get removed too, as it should be.
Same for Twitter. “But, but… they have a blue check mark!” yeah, as we all know now, means nothing.
I understood the reasoning from the beginning, but thanks for making it extremely clear that the rules don’t match the enforcement.
The rule is “news articles only”, it’s right there in the side bar. A blog is not a news article.
It is like you can’t read.
Then Hosam was not a journalist but a terrorist. Because he writes for a news organisation which publishes their articles using Substack.
Thank you for censoring a journalist who died to get the word out, using made up rules. You must be very proud of yourself.
It’s not about censoring anyone, it’s removing invalid sources. If they get re-hosted through a legitimate news site like Al Jazeera, fantastic. Go for it.
But we aren’t going to allow the community to be filled with bullshit blog sources.
Dropsitenews, a site ran by two top ex-journalists from TheIntercept, is a “blog site” because it is published on SubStack?
This is clearly gatekeeping so only mainstream media sources are allowed and no independent journalists.
You do not get to decide what is and what is not journalism. You are refusing to provide factual errors in the reporting and instead go for a cheap cop-out.
Yes, as I stated previously, we aren’t engaging in “buh buh you allowed that OTHER link, why not miiiiiine?” Blog sites aren’t allowed, full stop.
You are already banning certain websites and not allowing others at the discretion of a rating system operated by a Zionist. MBFC is rated by Wikipedia as unreliable source. Yet this does not seem to bother your “factuality”.
There are not a thousand independent journalists and news outlets popping up on Substack and people keep posting different ones. There only a handful actual journalists on there not writing opinion articles but doing real reporting.
Again, show me where MBFC says something is Questionable when they are not. This is the second time I’m asking you.
Also this one which really shows how Zionist the MBFC authors are.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drop-site-news-bias-and-credibility/
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL (2.2)
Failed Fact Checks
None in the Last 5 years
Let’s be real here, you would have removed it even if it was in a “actual news agency”.
https://lemmy.world/c/world?dataType=Post&sort=New
Tell me, what’s the most recent story and how long ago posted?
I’m starting to suspect that now that FlyingSquid is gone, the wildly nonsensical attacks have started against Jordan, trying to drive him out also. I’m interested in knowing why and who it is that is going to be left on the mod team once this process is completed.
Look, even the shitlibs have conspiracies now too.
Weird how it has no comments since everyone here is apparently sooooo invested in the story. Fascinating, huh?
It’s so bizarre lol. Everyone’s super invested in whining about the injustice still, and the replacement story you recommended has been up for 3 hours now.
I have made no secret I think that I don’t really agree with your moderation in some aspects, but this whole thing is some weapons-grade bullshit. It’s like watching Goebbels’s big lie in real time, and the weird thing is, it works. I can feel my own brain sort of trying to absorb “lemmy.world is pro-Israel” as a known fact everyone knows, just because the people are so insistent that it’s what’s up and so unwilling to waver from it.
The weird part for me is I know people in Lebanon who were struggling to survive under the previous illegal occupations by Israel, I’ve stated on multiple occasions that Israel has been committing war crimes in Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank and Golan for DECADES now and if the average American knew 1/2 of the shit they do, we’d be up in arms.
But somehow that makes me a zionist? LOL.
Here’s a personal story… I had a Lebanese roommate for years, had bullet holes in his legs from being shot by the Iraelis when he was a teenager. He was here on refugee status, got his citizenship, I went to his wedding, he came to mine. We’re that close.
One of his brothers is a doctor in Southern Lebanon. Not this illegal occupation, or the one before that, I think it was 2 or 3 illegal occupations ago, it’s hard to keep track…
Anyway… it was a regular occurance that Israeli soldiers would show up at his house in the middle of the night, drag him out at gunpoint, tell him if he resisted he would be killed, haul him off to treat some Palestinian prisoner they couldn’t otherwise be bothered with, then dump him at the side of the road like so much trash when they had no more use for him.
Until the next time…
But I can’t tell that to the folks who are convinced I’m a zionist. Maybe I should put it up on a Substack blog first? 🤔
Yeah. That’s how talking points work. They pick some type of accusation or claim that serves the purpose they want to accomplish, and they just keep hammering. It doesn’t need to be true. It needs to be emotionally resonant in some way, and it needs to just be repeated with a lot of force and conviction behind it, from a lot of different sources. Eventually, it’ll take hold, because the internet is a wild and mostly fact-free place.
I think it’s why they got so excited when this original post got removed, and why they are still here making noise about it. They’re going to milk this for as much as they can, to try to paint as much of the picture as they can while the opportunity is available. I realize I sound like some kind of conspiracy theorist but at this point I’m pretty solidly convinced of it.
I’m going to give them slightly more credit than you do… I don’t really see it as a conspiracy theory.
YPTB is made up, largely, of angsty kids who are of the opinion “fuck your rules”. They are anarchists who don’t feel communities should have any moderation AT ALL.
They aren’t upset at MY moderation, they chafe at ANY moderation.
It’s generally not personal for them, it’s a reaction to being told by the adult in the room “No, we don’t allow that here.”
9 times out of 10? I just dismiss their complaints with a subtle jerking off motion, which is all they deserve.
Most conspiracy theorists are.
Ah, the good ole “I’m not racist, I had a roommate who wasn’t white” argument.
Nothing is going to satisfy you, you can just fuck off with your bullshit at this point.
Terminal liberal brain. PTB.
Enforcing the rules of the community.
"Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Post news articles only"
I mean, it doesn’t get any more plain than that. But I guess it requires people to actually read the sidebar…
So you’re also removing any post that has an archive link to bypass paywalls?
Put them in the body. I’ll downvote every archive link used the post url because it obfuscates the source.
Archive links are expressly allowed by the admins. That came up when they enacted the rule on copy/pasting whole articles.
I asked specifically because submitting a link through the web UI helpfully offers to generate an archive link.
My argument was, if we disallow archive links, we should remove that from the web UI. Was told it was fine.
So then you should remove this part on rule 2?
Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Or you ignored the part of me asking about paywalls
This reply is even more entertaining now!
Can’t even read and understand their own rules and assume that everyone else is the problem.
Jfc why am I not surprised
What’s a good alternative to Worldnews?
Asking the real question.
I’ve been hearing about groundnews, not sure on worldwide coverage.
Sorry, YDI.
It’s a known rule, it’s been explained, and there are other places to post if you don’t like that rule.
If it was the only C/ for posting things like that, it might not matter much that the rule about substack exists, but there are many places for it.
Edit: also, it’s just a removal, that’s not even close to power tripping by itself; there would have to be other factors to approach that standard.
It is not a rule. Nowhere in the sidebar of the worldnews subreddit does it say that SubStack is not a valid source. Nor does it say anything about “blogs”. It says
Post news articles only
And this is most definitely a news article.
JordanLund is using his moderator powers to selectively decide what is and what is not “news” at his own whims.
You’re falling afoul of a common fallacy: that every rule needs to have every possible iteration of its boundaries spelled out. This is not the case.
To the contrary, it’s counterproductive. The more subclauses added to a rule, the more there are to remember, and the more people think that because something isn’t listed that it’s okay.
But, here’s the thing.
The only mod action taken was to remove the post and tell you that substack isn’t a valid source for that C/.
That’s exactly what a mod is supposed to do. You are still free to post on that community, with sources that are allowed. That’s the exact opposite of power tripping, it’s measured, responsible moderation.
You don’t have to agree that substack is a substandard and questionable source for news. You can freely post things from there on any of multiple lemmy communities. That C/ is not a gatekeeper for news on lemmy at all. Things being barred from there do not prevent them from being seen. So you can’t claim that it’s power tripping my that metric either.
But, I’m going to repeat and rephrase the opening of this comment.
It doesn’t matter how well written, how well spelled out the rules are, someone is always going to disagree with them, think they don’t apply to them, or just try to play rules lawyer with them to get around them. Trying to continually chase new rules, and rules expansions is a sucker’s game, it can never succeed.
That being said, if Jordanlund or any other mod of that Conley community, or any community, wants to try and streamline their rules, I’m always glad to try and help jigger the wording of things. And, that rule probably does need clearer language just to reduce future complaints. It is a bit vague considering that “news articles” is not defined, and the colloquial usage of the term differs from a more formal one.
Worldnews ascribes authority to judge source validity to MBFC (which I disagree with, but let us put that aside).
Dropsite is rated highly credible on MBFC. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drop-site-news-bias-and-credibility/
None of that matters for the purposes of this community.
The mod action taken was well within the purview of the community and its rules
Nor does it say anything about “blogs”.
It say to only post news articles. Blogs aren’t news articles.
Hossam Shabat reporting about a genocide from Gaza is a “blog”? What lunacy is this argument?
These are not “opinion articles”. Dropsite does some of the most hardcore factual journalism out there.
Calling Dropsite a “blog” means you do not understand what the word “news” even means.
But but but it’s not from CNN or FOX or MSN or some other centralized editorialized platform that can force their own spin on it so therefore it isn’t news!
(/S)
Calling Dropsite a “blog” means you do not understand what the word “news” even means.
You were the one to bring up blogs, mate … but sure, if you say so.
Jordanlund brought up “blogs” as a nonsense reason to ban dropsite.
It’s literally what Jordanlund cited as the reason for removal.
YDI
The “you can’t post stuff from blogs” rule is common on many communities. It’s not because of who he is, it’s because you can’t post Substack stuff. The rule is fine, I actually don’t love it but there’s a valid reason for it. Stop pretending it is some kind of pro-Israel bias when that has literally nothing at all to do with this.
Since the people whining extensively about liberal censorship didn’t take the much smaller length of time it would have taken to instead just post to [email protected] the exact same story from Z Network, I’ve done it for you. You’re welcome.
Thanks for that! I would have done it, but I saw too much abuse on reddit where mods would remove something only to add it themselves because… ? They wanted the imaginary internet points? 🤔 I never got that but saw it way, way too often.
Fuckin’ mods… Wait, what? 😉
Yeah. The fact that none of them were interested enough to post it, even when you found it for them, sent them the link, and told them that it was a solid source and you wouldn’t remove it, kind of tells the whole story IMO: They’re all just excited because there is finally a single datum that sort of looks at first glance like the persistent myth that lemmy.world is in any way pro-Israel is finally, for all time, confirmed, and we all need to feel super strongly about it and remember it forever.
I love the part where it magically became a news article because of where it was posted instead of the author and content!
That is in fact generally exactly how it works.
If I host something on Substack called “Philip’s News,” and I publish Hossam Shabat’s last article, it becomes hard to tell whether it’s really his last article or if it’s just what I am claiming is his last article. People on the internet sometimes do publish lies about things like this, and it really is a genuine problem. Once it’s published by an organization with something to lose (which generally happens instantly for big news items like this, as it did for this), then it’s vetted, and it’s preferable to post it from that news source just so everyone knows it’s reliable and there doesn’t have to be a big argument about it every time.
I do think the policy could use some adjustment. There are some sources (Newsweek being a big one) that are “official” but have a track record of lying at this point, that shouldn’t be used even though AFAIK they are allowed on /c/world. There are some people who are professional journalists who publish on Substack, and I think that should be allowed as long as they are published professionals. But the rule is not some crazy conspiracy to silence the truth.
You could have spent your whining time just posting the article that Jordan already sent you a link to. You could spend your downvotes to my comments, instead on upvotes for the article I posted on your behalf. You seem like you’re more into the idea of a performative snit that you are in posting this news. Well, good luck with it. I hope your snit goes well. You seem like you’re enjoying it, so I encourage you to continue.
You could have spent your whining time just posting the article that Jordan already sent you a link to.
I want the power tripping bastard to update the rules to be more clear. If you think that is whining, then you still don’t understand that ‘only news articles’ is a shitty fucking rule when it isn’t clear what that means.
Especially when a source that would have been considered a news aite in the past is being questioned.
There are some sources (Newsweek being a big one) that are “official” but have a track record of lying at this poin
I don’t doubt they are shit! But how would anyone know they don’t count as news if the mod decides they don’t count at some point in the future?
Aw, jeez. You wrote:
Yeah, I understand the policy but it seems like it would be good to update the rules so it’s clear and objective so people don’t get senselessly bent out of shape and start extensive silly arguments in YPTB. Actually it’s also a good thing other people are chiming in with some concrete productive suggestions about how to improve the rules, but at a bare minimum I feel like it’d be good to explicitly clarify the rules in the sidebar, whatever they are.
And I somehow misread what you wrote as:
I love the part where it magically became a news article because of where it was posted instead of the author and content!
shitty fucking rule
twisting my extremely clear point into absurd word nonsense
It is like you can’t read
Jeez, imagine if you’d posted all that stuff, just sort of throwing vitriol around to no purpose. Although, everyone knows that getting into a big bitter argument with someone is the best way to change their mind and improve the policy, so you might want to consider throwing some personal insults and general aggrieved-ness into the mix. Just a little. Who knows, it might help!
Ah yes, being polite always works with unreasonable people who never admit they are wrong.
You just linked an example of that not working, so maybe I’m missing your point.
The rules will never be clear enough for people who refuse to actually read them.
I took a look and I see their point. Rule 3 sounds like there’s effectively a black list of known unreliable sources. And even then, it sounds like there would be exceptions based on the mods’ discretion. I wouldn’t expect a blanket ban on blogs from reading that.
Personally, I think requiring a reputable source for an article is a good policy for the community, at least when one is available, as in this case. And it does sound like it is being enforced objectively. We are in an age where information is weaponized and fake news and engagement is manufactured maliciously. It makes sense to be skeptical of sources with no reputation on the line.
But I do think the requirement should be clarified in the rules better to match what it means de facto. If nothing else, it would simplify things when someone complains again in the future. And including a list of repeat offender sites could be helpful so long as it’s clear that it is not exhaustive. Just mentioning that MBFC is used to judge sources could reduce the amount of unreliable posts in the first place.
For reference, these are the rules I see:
Rules:
-
Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Posts from sources that aren’t known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
-
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
-
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.
Instance-wide rules always apply.
-
Oh, Newsweek man… Don’t get me started… Time was they were just a 2nd tier news magazine. Kind of like to Time Magazine what USA Today is to the New York Times.
But after the ownership/management change in 2018 they started sliding BAD. Now they want to push AI slop and my prediction is they’ll fully destroy themselves in 2-3 years.
For NOW, they’re still allowed, how long that will last? Not sure.
I really don’t understand why /c/world doesn’t use the Wikipedia perennial sources list instead of MBFC. It’s kept up to date, it’s peer-reviewed, there is extensive discussion and oversight by experts instead of what MBFC uses (which as far as I can tell is sometimes just one person with significant biases writing down whatever he thinks). Newsweek is just one of a few different significant sources where Wikipedia gets it right and MBFC’s rating is hot garbage.
I get the desire to use a somewhat professionally put together third-party list, it seems like a pretty necessary thing to do, but using for that objective list the MBFC ratings just seems like the objectively wrong decision when there is a source that exists that’s unambiguously better. IDK, you guys can do what you like, but it just seems like a baffling decision and I’ve never heard a really coherent explanation of the reasons behind it.
A lot of people complain about MBFC, but when I ask them “Great, show me a source they say is questionable that is not and I’ll stop using it.”
Silence.
Generally people get hung up over what they flag as right or left and that doesn’t enter into our decisions on whether to remove a post or not. Right/Left/Center doesn’t matter as long as it’s a reliable source and that’s one thing MBFC does that Ad Fontes does not.
“But, but, it can’t be ‘Right’ AND ‘Reliable’!”
Sure it can, look at National Review, which has been the gold standard for conservative thought for decades.
Almost like how news sources work, huh?
Again, if the rule is supposed to be ‘established and reputable news sites with their own websites’ then that should be the wording of the rule. It is not much longer and far more clear what you mean.
You still don’t get that ‘only news articles’ is too fucking vague and expecting people to understand what you mean based on a discussion in an earlier PTB thread is fucking stupid. Just write something 12 words long instead of six and it won’t seem like you are arbitrarily deciding what a news article is.
There’s more to rule 1, I only pasted the first line of it because that’s all that’s applicable here, but feel free to read the entire sidebar.
I did and the rest doesn’t clarify what you mean.
In facr, the rules for the old and closed World News are closer to the rules you are enforcing than the rules in the current World News sidebar.
Man, this instance is great way to find people who need to be blocked
I think it’s both kind of YDI and clueless mod.
Because they’ve consistently enforced no substack as far as I’m aware.
But also, I think that they should make an exception for this case.
There is no rule against substack nor against ‘blogs’ and dropsite is even approved by MBFC.
The mod is pulling rules out of thin air.
put  to embed gifs by the way :)
where it’s typed like this:
Another Jordan Lund post, another chance to remind everyone that @[email protected] is a racist and a zionist and will do whatever he can to delete pro-Palestinian posts, or posts that criticize Israel.
The #2 post on the current “top 6 hours” view is criticizing Israel. He also posted in this article offering some other sources that were more reliable that would be good for this story, and all the people complaining ignored them. Eventually one of them was reposted (somehow), and is still up. Shocker.
How does this address the fact he’s a racist zionist?
It addresses the fact that you are blatantly lying. I have no idea about Jordan’s underlying politics about Israel. I just know the observable facts about his moderation, that the replacement source he recommended for this story has been up for 3 hours, and the second-to-top post is something you are insisting is impossible. And you don’t really care, you’re just insisting that there are five lights vigorously and repeatedly. You are lying on purpose. Why?
Listen here, you little shit. He literally interviewed for an article and said he opposed BLM because they were an inconvenience to him. And I don’t give a shit what he’s saying now to throw off people, I’ve seen him say zio shit on more than one occasion, and you don’t just suddenly give up being a right-wing twatwaffle.
Jordan Lund is a vile, racist, zionist piece of shit, and anyone who defends or supports him is sitting at the table with him and accepts those labels for themselves.
What a coherent and sensible response.
I guess that’s probably your best option though. What else are you supposed to say? You can’t exactly say the screenshot is fake, or that what it shows isn’t blatantly contradictory to what you’re trying to say. I guess just “listen here, you little shit” is about the best response you have available lol. I think most of the time, you’ll get some hostility back in return, and then it just becomes “oh God people are yelling at each other,” and the factual message gets muddled up.
I am still very curious why you (and a bunch of the other “usual suspects” accounts in these comments) are so determinedly lying about this. You clearly don’t actually care about the article itself, or else you would be upvoting it, commenting under it, generally… I don’t know, something. But instead you are over here, determinedly creating the fiction where Jordan Lund censored it. Why?
And here you are, just ignoring the fact Jordan is a racist piece of shit that’s on record defending Israel, because he hasn’t deleted one article, so clearly that is proof everyone is lying and out to get him!
It’s pretty obvious to me that you’re as much of a racist piece of shit as he is, if you’re this hellbent on defending him. And I don’t argue with people John Brown would have shot.
Tribal engagement. Nice. Pretty much anyone who’s pro-Palestinian will see you saying “zionist” and whatnot, and then me disagreeing with you, and might come to the conclusion that I am on the pro-Israel side.
Also, the wild personal attacks are a pretty solid tactic. When you come out with “piece of shit”, vaguely implied death threats, “vile”, “twatwaffle”, and whatnot, people will usually have to decide between abandoning the conversation (makes it look like you have a point), responding in kind (makes them look like an unhinged arguer-on-the-internet – this tactic worked great on FlyingSquid), or just kind of continuing to address the subject matter and ignoring it (makes them look like a pussy for sitting there and taking it). There’s not really a good option out of those for how to respond. And, whatever happens, we’ve abandoned the factual stuff we were talking about. Nice.
The pivot to talking suddenly about an unanswerable question (what Jordan’s internal politics are) instead of the very clearly answerable one we were talking about, without any acknowledgement that we’re doing that pivot, is pretty standard fare, but in keeping with the other tactics it’s likely to be pretty effective. I like also how you’re trying to bait me into an extended discussion about whether he is or isn’t, by saying “on record,” so we can start digging through messages, as if that’s now the point of what we’re talking about all of a sudden.
Let’s see… reframing my argument in wild incorrect ways. I’m now saying “everyone” is lying (instead of just you lying, and the other people in these comments who are clearly lying, look at the screenshot). And my proof is something totally different than the screenshot I sent. My proof is all of a sudden that he didn’t delete the article. Some kind of Uno reverse… because you lied about him deleting the article, and I pointed out that he didn’t, now you’re turning it around as being not that big a deal that he didn’t delete the article after all, and it doesn’t prove anything. Oh, also using “hellbent” to sort of emotionally load the conversation as me being the one who’s not really being logical is a good use of spin.
Let’s see… what else? You packed a ton of stuff into some pretty short messages lol. Have you ever thought about going pro?
I have not defended Israel, I have stated multiple times that they have been committing war crimes and their current actions in Gaza meet all 5 definitions for Genocide when only 1 is needed to count as a genocide.
No, I oppose BLM for two reasons:
-
The protests where I live serve no purpose as everyone here agrees with them. They’re preaching to the choir to make themselves feel better instead of taking the protests where it might actually matter.
-
They only care when the Black Life in question is taken by a white cop. 9 year old girl killed in a gang crossfire? BLM is fucking silent. Either BLM or they don’t. Be honest about it.
Hear about Kaylah Love? No, of course not, because BLM doesn’t give two shits about Kaylah Love.
Sorry dude but that’s a pretty bad take. BLM was never about gang violence. It was about systemic racism and murder of black people by police. The idea being Black Lives Matter (too) because noone was giving a fuck about the disproportionately large number of black people murdered by police without repercussion or the slightest media coverage.
This is a frankly bizarre take. BLM is a protest aimed at the government (specifically the police apparatus). They already investigate gang criminality (your link specifically mentions that the Chicago PD is investigating). So as far as BLM is concerned, that’s the appropriate response and the government is doing its job? What is there to protest here, it’s not like gangs are going to go “oh shit look BLM is protesting, better stop all our criminal activities”. You should feel sympathetic to them not protesting this, because the protest would be heard by people who already agree and by people who don’t care (see your own “preaching to the choir”-argument).
BLM protests disproportionate police action usually aimed at black people, because it’s not how they think the government should act, nor do they react appropriately afterwards. That’s their pretty singular purpose.
Your argument boils down to a strange combination of whataboutism and a strange attempt at gatekeeping “standing up for the civil rights of minorities”, which I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen someone else attempt tbh.
They only care when the Black Life in question is taken by a white cop. 9 year old girl killed in a gang crossfire? BLM is fucking silent. Either BLM or they don’t. Be honest about it.
BLM was a response to cops of all races taking the lives of black people, not just white cops. Your example is of someone who was murdered, but not by the cops.
You should try reading the news more.
“What about black-on-black crime?”
Another check on my “I’m not a racist” bingo card.
Find a story where BLM is remotely interested in a death not caused by a white cop. It’s cool, I’ll wait.
Should they change their name to “BLM*”?
-
Gee, because I’m neither?
As I stated in the last thread:
If you think I’m a zionist when my personal opinion is we need military intervention in Israel to force them into a two state solution, then I’m doing my job correctly.
Nobody has the balls to roll soldiers into Israel, unfortunately.
Factually anyone who believes Israel has a right to exist is a Zionist by the words definition.
That’s ye olde definition and was true for decades which is why Biden said “I am a zionist”. The meaning has changed greatly since Israel’s war crimes became apparent.
My favorite bit on this… Following 9/11 one of Bush’s arguments for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was in violation of 17 or 18 UN resolutions.
At the same time, Israel was violating close to 100 due to their actions in Lebanaon, Gaza, and the West Bank. It would have been more than 100 except the US has veto power on resolutions.
