Context:
The article in question was well sourced, factually accurate, and written by a well-renowned author and journalist whose work appears elsewhere too, regardless of which outlet published it.
Nonetheless, Jordan Lund is once again blindly trusting a pro-zionist conservative outlet masquerading as a bias and fact checker that nothing from anywhere that criticizes the fascist apartheid regime can be reliable 🤦
Christ on a bike.
I have a hard time taking seriously anything or anyone who says “Far-Left Biased” (esp. with that capitalization) unironically.
Lazy PTB on the grounds of (maybe mindlessly) parroting Fox News rhetoric instead of researching themselves.
Far left = center left
Just shift every bias check result to the right a bunch and its correct lol
How dare you be anti-genocide, you extremist?!1!?? /s
“You being against mass murder cost us the election!”
The world skews left anyway. Also, politics in 'merica is so screwed that everything skews to the right.
But anyone who isn’t a moron knows that MBFC is an incredibly biased source… Right?
Literally they make it so obvious
They think that because it claims to be accurate, therefore it is. No fact checking of themselves, no matter how it is completely wrong and treats liberal media as far left, and fox news are center right, it’s the godsend for the mods to remove anything they dislike.
Fox is marked as right-wing, bordering on “extreme” https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias/
It’s my one grouse with the Tesseract ui, that they grab MBFC ratings for every post linking an external site and highlight it. It’s not the awesome feature you seem to think it is, Patrick
Oh i just realized that stupid bias check bot has been gone for a while. Everyone hated it so i guess it was killed or blocked at some point? Anyone know the story?
Personally I haven’t seen it for ages because I blocked it, but if I was to guess, the mods finally relented to the overwhelming majority? 🤷
They held a vote after insisting for ages that it was a ‘small minority’ of users that had a problem with it. It wasn’t 90/10, but it wasn’t 50/50 either.
Oh, and they only held the vote after jordanlund claimed he would get demodded by the admins if he removed the bot. And when someone pinged an admin they said they had no idea how he got that impression, lol.
Yeah Jordanlund has a history of lying about why he does certain things. The fact that he said that when you can just simply ask the admins if that’s true or not, is enough for me to never trust him.
The dude has recently been saying how much he is against what’s happening in Gaza, but people brought up screenshots of him saying he was a fan of sending more bombs to Israel, and removing posts highlighting the increase in weapons being sent to Israel in the last 4 years.
The dude would have to get his neighbors to call the dogs home because they wouldn’t believe him.
liberals, against every war but the war that’s happening right now
Are you serious? Because I really wanted to give Jordan the benefit of doubt mod decisions were flawed, but a though job on his part. ;(
Edit: NVM jordanlund has removed a thread by @miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar miss_demeanour in politics - He voted for Trump. Now his wife sits in an ICE detention center.
Took me a bit to find it; it was in a direct reply to an admin rather than pinging them. They also give a link to the thread where JL claims the admins would sack him if he got rid of the bot.
Thanks so much. I had to “context” a few times but finally found it: https://lemmy.world/comment/12825768
Also thanking @https://kbin.earth/u/@PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat for standing up in that thread.
Yeah people kept complaining so eventually they just quietly turned it off
It wasn’t quiet, we put it up to a vote.
There was a public vote on whether to eliminate it or not from the .world news and politics communities, and the vote to remove won, thankfully!
We should really start those dashboards of power tripping per mod
As usual
I’m all for the increased federation of news from .world and .ml to limit the censorship the mod teams enable when it doesn’t paint America or Russia as the perfect golden cows.
It’s kinda of sad that these are still not just called “news” but have to use “world” or “globalnews” because it otherwise is assumed that it is just US news.
Yes, same for !politics@lemmy.world which is restricted to US politics
I wondered why I couldnt see it, I blocked this in my first few hours being on lemmy
This is the mod who shielded UniversalMonk for months and only banned them once like 1000 people loudly harped on it for weeks. Fuck that guy
I lack any context but if the rule is against questionable sources and a mod is able to document that the source is questionable then surely there other news outlets are reporting on that too that you can use. Unless there’s a big conspiracy against that.
No conspiracy required. The Celtic fans’ antifascist and pro-Palestinian position is not news, so I see no reason to expect non-left outlets to report an equivalent opinion piece. In fact, this second image was reported in news 9 years ago[1].
That said, Manufacturing Consent is an excellent introduction to why mass media bias has emerged.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/love-from-glasgow-to-gaza-why-celtic-fc-fans-support-palestine/289198/
I was going to say that it’s probably just an unsourced opinion-analysis piece, but no it’s pretty thorough, even though it is relatively light news (and not an investigation despite the tag). The site doesn’t seem unreliable to me.
Avoiding non-newsworthy content might be a part of intention behind the rule but whether that makes sense depends on how you want to run a community. I try to make an effort to not assume ill intent (not always successful) and this just looks like a mod is using external list not to be critiqued for arbitrary choices and that only works if no exceptions are made.
We already know legacy media is heavily biased because it’s owned by the same handful of businesses. And I understand questionable sources such as Breitbart being removed. Yet here we are.
The community rules cleary states that opinion pieces and unreliable sources are subject to removal. You posted the epitome of an unreliable source. This is just enforcing the rules.
YDI.
It’s not an opinion piece and the author himself is a reliable source.
By the logic of you and jordanlund, everything Malala Yousafzai ever said in should have been dismissed as unreliable for happening in a Taliban-controlled area.
Or, for a less hyperbolic example of the opposite, automatically trusting every source with a good reputation to the point where you trust the New York Times on stories regarding Palestine or cops.
It’s not an opinion piece and the author himself is a reliable source.
But the website that is publishing it, isn’t. There is also the occasional accurate article on breitbart or foxnews … doesn’t mean those sources should be allowed.
If your author is reliable, surley a more reliable source will publish his article. Link to that instead.
By the logic of you and jordanlund, everything Malala Yousafzai ever said in should have been dismissed as unreliable for happening in a Taliban-controlled area.
There is no logic to that statement.
Or, for a less hyperbolic example of the opposite, automatically trusting every source with a good reputation to the point where you trust the New York Times on stories regarding Palestine or cops.
If a source has repeatedly demonstratate to be unreliable, that is a good reason to completely avoid that source. But that does in no way imply that a source that has demonstrated to be reliable should always be trusted. Not even sure how you got there.
There is also the occasional accurate article on breitbart or foxnews
Not really, no. They DEFINITELY don’t have a whole topic area where they’re generally reliable, like Mint has with Palestine.
I’m not saying that Mint don’t publish misinformation and other bullshit as well, but on Palestine specifically, they seem to be ok from what little I’ve seen.
If your author is reliable, surley a more reliable source will publish his article.
That would be the case if it was a general interest news story, sure, but not an article about solidarity amongst football fans.
While rage bait tends to get circulated widely, only certain outlets will publish a POSITIVE story, even if it DOES relate to a controversial subject.
If a source has repeatedly demonstratate to be unreliable, that is a good reason to completely avoid that source
Unless its reliability varies from subject to subject. Like in this case where a site that might be susceptible to Kremlin propaganda might also publish good stories that other outlets wouldn’t.
But that does in no way imply that a source that has demonstrated to be reliable should always be trusted. Not even sure how you got there.
I got there by applying logic to demonstrate how illogical and prejudiced your absolutist stance is.
If unreliable = always unreliable, it logically follows that reliable = always reliable. Claiming otherwise is textbook hypocrisy and intellectually dishonest or at least a sign of poor self-awareness.
I’m not saying that Mint don’t publish misinformation and other bullshit as well, but on Palestine specifically, they seem to be ok from what little I’ve seen.
And if you asked on .grad or .ml, peopel will say their reporting on Russia/Ukraine is ok, too.
The fact that this publisher was funded by the Syrian, Russian and Iranian government is more then enough red flags for me to compleltey dismiss them as a source. If individual articles have merit, they’ll be published somewhere else.
Like in this case where a site that might be susceptible to Kremlin propaganda might also publish good stories that other outlets wouldn’t.
If the only site willing to publish a specific article is a Kremlin propaganda site, you should stop and ask why.
If unreliable = always unreliable, it logically follows that reliable = always reliable. Claiming otherwise is textbook hypocrisy and intellectually dishonest or at least a sign of poor self-awareness.
That is some terrible logic.
Ignoring someone that has repeatedly and deliberately lied to you is common sense. They can’t be trusted. But that doesn’t mean that someone that has never lied to you is infallible. They could still make mistakes or start lying to you tomorrow. You should never turst blindly. They are two completely indepent scenarios.
Removed by mod
under 1 day old account… let me check the source
edit: ??? contradictory but i invalidate
It’s Antiyanks, an extremely persistent troll. Don’t bother with them, they’ll be banned soon for ban evasion for the 100th time. No, that is not an exaggeration.
thanks
Yeah, why wouldn’t they?
Removed by mod
Yeah a couple hundreds of people wrote a letter. Very interesting.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
PTB. Lund needs to leave Portland and see the real world lmao
Does Chicago count? Las Vegas? Los Angeles? Seattle? San Diego? San Francisco? Cupertino? Laguna Beach? Memphis was interesting. Not counting “airport only” trips like Denver, Atlanta, or Salt Lake City. Forgot Kona/Kailua… that one was a long time ago now…
PTB. Anyone who knows better is aware that MBFC is extremely biased, their ratings should be taken with a grain of salt. Lund doesn’t care and instead chooses to believe their word as gospel. It might even be intentional, Lund has shown in his behaviors and how he moderates a strong conservative and pro-zionist bias, which is concerning to say the least. Might be best to stay away from the communities he moderates.
He would gladly censor anything he disagrees with as a liberal who didn’t like black people standing up for their rights to not be publicly executed.
PTB, not a shocker.
YDI, you broke rules you got the post removed, I don’t see anything wrong
wikipedia lists mint as an unreliable source, of course, I don’t doubt the article, its clear that he’s using it as an excuse to take down the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Legend
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
You’re putting a lot of effort into defending a shitty source.
To be clear, I DON’T CARE who wrote the article. Shitty sources don’t deserve the traffic.
It could be a nobel prize winner, if it’s on a questionable source, it’s getting removed.
Put on your big boy pants and find a better source.
Edit If you CAN’T find a better source on the same story, it’s an opportunity to step back ask ask why…
You’re putting a lot of effort into defending a shitty source.
Nope. I’m defending the ARTICLE, which has nothing to do with the more reasonable reasons to distrust Mintpress
To be clear, I DON’T CARE who wrote the article.
You REALLY should. Sometimes great journalists don’t have the luxury of being picky about who publishes their work.
The post is about the article and, other than not fawning over Israel, the article doesn’t exemplify any of the “offenses” MBFC accuses it of.
Shitty sources don’t deserve the traffic.
Great articles do. If anything, limiting access to the good things an otherwise questionable publisher posts reduces their incentive to publish more of that kind and less clickbaity mis/disinformation.
It could be a nobel prize winner, if it’s on a questionable source, it’s getting removed
That’s 100% grade A horseshit and against the REASON to have the rule in the first place. It would behoove you to reconsider such an arbitrarily rigid approach.
Put on your big boy pants and find a better source.
Take off your scolding cap and stop censoring good articles for arbitrary reasons.
Edit If you CAN’T find a better source on the same story, it’s an opportunity to step back ask ask why…
If it had been an opinion piece or breaking news making questionable claims, sure. This is neither of that and well-sourced, though, so would be more akin to dismissing a movie for being an exclusive of a streaming service you don’t like.
Shitty sources get removed, full stop.
The author doesn’t enter into it.
The quality of the article doesn’t enter into it.
We aren’t giving traffic to them. Or Fox, or Newsmax or Oann, or, etc. etc. etc.
If you don’t like that, feel free to post elsewhere, we have higher standards.
Shitty sources get removed, full stop.
The author doesn’t enter into it.
The quality of the article doesn’t enter into it.
That’s a bullshit policy and if you didn’t have your “this is how I do it because this is the way I do it” blinders on, you might understand that.
We aren’t giving traffic to them
You ARE aware that a lot of publishers, ESPECIALLY ones that don’t worry enough about quality and reliability, look at number of impressions when deciding what kind of things to post more of, right?
By keeping people away from something GOOD they post, you’re giving Mint a perverse incentive to post less quality journalism about Gaza and more of the kinds that IS bullshit but gets more clicks.
If you don’t like that, feel free to post elsewhere,
I will.
weI havehigherarbitrary and counterproductive standards.Fixed it for you.
No, because if we allow one source that’s questionable, then the next time this comes up it will be “But, but, you allowed this other bullshit source, why not miiiiiiiine??!???” We aren’t opening that door.
We went over this with the legit journalist posting from Substack. Don’t care, Substack isn’t a source.
Read what other people are telling you in this very thread, YDI.
No, because if we allow one source that’s questionable, then the next time this comes up it will be “But, but, you allowed this other bullshit source, why not miiiiiiiine??!???” We aren’t opening that door.
Holy slippery slope fallacy, Batman! 🙄
Read what other people are telling you in this very thread, YDI.
I have, and most either agree with me or disagree based on the irrelevant point you keep harping on.
Rigidly dogmatic mods such as yourself is the reason why most people from other instances avoid .world when possible.
Use a better source and you won’t have this problem. For now?
You shielded universalmonk and routinely banned other people for minor insults
Universal Monk knew right where the line was, when they crossed it, they were gone.
Others didn’t care where the line was.
Not true. You thought you knew just how to defend their disgusting and transparent motives but they were indefensible. A chorus of many people shouted loudly for weeks and it finally had an impact.
How do I know it wasn’t true? From a million miles away that was an obvious troll and that was specifically breaking the rules.
Life has been better for me since I blocked the politics sub.
No, the mods discussed their account multiple times and each time reached the conclusion they were not breaking the rules… until they did, and when they did, they got booted.
There’s a lot behind the scenes that you aren’t aware of.
Life has been better since you blocked politics? Must have happened after you got banned:
https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=1413078
