Worldnews mods remove last article written by assasinated Palestinian journalist Hossam Shabat

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 '.

You're viewing a single thread.

241 comments

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 !world@lemmy.world 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.
  
  Good point
  
  I wasn't talking for Jordan's sake. I already was pretty sure he wasn't going to change the policy because I've had this conversation with him before. I actually don't think he is in charge or has the ability to change the policy, I just think that for whatever weird reason, he's chosen to go out and attempt to "defend" it. It was just sort of due diligence, I guess. I don't really know why I chose to talk with him about the MBFC policy yesterday.
  My point was that your chosen approach is guaranteed not to work. With reasonable people or with unreasonable people. And, you're ignoring things that you could be doing that would work that no one is stopping you from doing (like posting the story you wanted to have posted, from some reliable source, or advocating for some other world news community with less bizarre moderation.) You're just sort of throwing insults around. I'm saying that is unlikely to accomplish anything, although it might be fun.
  
  My point was that your chosen approach is guaranteed not to work.
  I started off clear and concise and didn't escalate until they dug in their heels and it was clear they weren't going to budge. At that point I was posting to vent and maybe it would encourage others to try something that might get through.
  Throwing insults around is not always a negative thing, sometimes expressing frustration is a valid thing for people to do even if it doesn't fix anything. While your advice would work for engaging with reasonable people, it ends up being tone policing when the approach never mattered in the first place.
  
  I went back to the beginning of your conversation and all I see is you and Jordan being equally snitty and pedantic at each other.
  IDK, man. You're not really wrong as far as talking to Jordan sometimes being like talking to a wall. But I think your chosen approach is pretty much guaranteed to make that tendency worse, if someone already has it. That's as long as I really want to go back and forth on the subject.
  
  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.
  
  “Great, show me a source they say is questionable that is not and I’ll stop using it.”
  Al Jazeera and MSNBC. They both have the same factual rating as the New York Post, for transparently ridiculous reasons.
  If by "questionable," you mean "unreliable and thus forbidden for posting," I'm not aware of one, although I could search. Would it make a difference?
  The other side of the question -- a source they say is unquestionable which in fact is highly questionable -- is even worse. They produce an objective degradation in the quality of /c/world by allowing garbage sources like Newsweek (which they rate "mostly factual," a tick above both MSNBC and Al Jazeera.)
  
  MBFC literally has a "Questionable" category, this came up the last time I removed a bullshit link from Mint Press News.
  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mint-press-news/
  New York Post and MSNBC are not "Questionable":
  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/
  "Medium Credibility".
  
  Got it, fair enough. But why are we suddenly moving the goalposts to "Do they regard as questionable a source which is not?" instead of "Do they regard as un-questionable some sources which are questionable?" or "Is there an objectively better list we could be using instead?" I mean I'm happy to search and see if there is some that meets that first criteria, but the other two criteria also seem highly pertinent.
  (Also why on earth is the New York Post not "questionable"? Does that mean it's allowed? Mint Press is literal Russian propaganda. Is that the bar now?)
  
  Mintpressnews, the people reporting on Israeli spies writing American news and backing it up with evidence, is not reliable?
  Your definition of reliable is "believes everything I believe".
  
  Well this is a straight up massive lie. You have been provided with a ton of examples in the past by many different users. Including many times in this very community.
  
  Give me an example of a site MBFC says is "Questionable" that in reality is reliable. I can wait.
  
  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.

241 comments