245
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by IndustryStandard@lemmy.world to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com


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 '.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

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!

[-] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 7 months ago

You know how newspapers let random people write in and share their stories and perspectives, thats kinda like a blog huh?

[-] admiralpatrick@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Yes, those are called "Opinions / Editorials / Letters to the Editor" et al. Both News and WorldNews have rules against opinion articles as well.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 7 months ago
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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!

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Again, show me where MBFC says something is Questionable when they are not. This is the second time I'm asking you.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Also this one which really shows how Zionist the MBFC authors are.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mondoweiss/

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Don't care. Show me where a source they mark "Questionable" is not, in fact, Questionable.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Mondoweiss – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

Overall, we rate Mondoweiss as Left Biased and Questionable due to the blending of opinion with news, the promotion of pro-Palestinian and anti-zionist propaganda, occasional reliance on poor sources, and hate group designation by third-party pro-Israel advocates. (D. Van Zandt 3/4/2017) Updated (12/07/2023)

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Mondoweiss is a trash source, try again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondoweiss

In 2015, David Bernstein, writing for The Washington Post, called the website a "hate site", and listed quotes from Weiss that he said were anti-Semitic. This included Weiss' claim that "the Israel lobby ... reflected a contract the American establishment had made with Jews to drive the economy in the 1970s",[62] which Bernstein likened to a belief in an "Elders of Zion type group". It was also described as a hate site in the book Anti-Zionism on Campus by Andrew Pessin.[63]

According to Elliot Kaufman, the Vice President of Cardinal for Israel, a Stanford University group, writing in The Stanford Review, Mondoweiss "often publishes astonishingly anti-Semitic material, using classic anti-Semitic imagery such as depicting Jews as spiders, cockroaches, or octopuses with tentacles controlling others, and Holocaust inversion. Its hatred of Israel is as deep as it is vicious."[64]

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
245 points (100.0% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1572 readers
27 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.


Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules


Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS