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 '.
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.
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
What’s a good alternative to Worldnews?
Another Jordan Lund post, another chance to remind everyone that @jordanlund@lemmy.world 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.
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.
“What about black-on-black crime?”
Another check on my “I’m not a racist” bingo card.
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.
-
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.
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?
The rules will never be clear enough for people who refuse to actually read them.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
It’s literally what Jordanlund cited as the reason for removal.
Jordanlund brought up “blogs” as a nonsense reason to ban dropsite.
Removed by mod
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/
Removed by mod
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.
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.
Anyone can set up a website. You should block those.
And when they set up bullshit “news” sites, we absolutely do!
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.
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?
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.
Put them in the body. I’ll downvote every archive link used the post url because it obfuscates the source.
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.
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
Why would you say that, and then when they have a host, swap back to the argument of what code they used to host it, if you are not blocking this only because of its content?
The absolute lack of self awareness.
I’m very self aware we do not allow blog sites.
It’s a very, very simple rule. Blogger? No. Medium? No. Substack? Also absolutely not.
We treat them no differently than we do social media like Twitter, X, Facebook, Instagram, etc.
Do legitimate news sources have accounts there? Absolutely. We don’t allow them either.
If it’s actual news, link to an actual news site, not a blog and not social media.
Don’t like that rule? Tough titty said the kitty when the milk ran dry. Go make your own community and enjoy the flood of blogspam.
Don’t like that rule? Tough titty said the kitty when the milk ran dry. Go make your own community and enjoy the flood of blogspam.
Lol classico power tripping.
Do legitimate news sources have accounts there? Absolutely. We don’t allow them either.
Glad you at least acknowledge that now.
I said that a week ago, do try to keep up.
"No, I’m saying they share a host with bullshit news sites. Until they divest from Substack, they’re off limits with the rest of Substack.
Just like NBC, posting to Twitter gets removed, because we aren’t hosting Twitter bullshit."
Jeez, I compliment your improvement and you’re still tripping. I get that your ruling is arbitrary. Substack, blog. Wordpress.com, not blog. You’re the boss.
You know how newspapers let random people write in and share their stories and perspectives, thats kinda like a blog huh?
Yes, those are called “Opinions / Editorials / Letters to the Editor” et al. Both News and WorldNews have rules against opinion articles as well.
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!
The rule should be about where it is posted if that is the important part.
The rule is explicit: News Articles Only.
Blogs aren’t news articles.
This is an article, by a news org. Highly trusted. With editors, with their own hosting… But they use the tech stack that other blogs use? What if I told you many reputable news sources uses blog tech stacks?
Then it shouldn’t be on a blog site. ;)
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.
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.
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? 🤔
