Looking at you @jordanlund@lemmy.world. Video content isn’t just a legitimate and primary source of political news, it’s become the primary format for political news since before 2016. Not allowing it introduces a silly form of institutuional editorial bias. AND SPEAKING OF EDITORIAL BIAS, if a print media platform has an editorial board it should be an acceptable source, regardless if they are powered by WordPress, ghost, geocities or any other platform. Just because a company self-hosts their content it doesn’t make it any more legitimate than if a outlet uses an existing piece of software like substack to serve their content. The software shouldn’t be a factor in what counts as journalistic content, it should be whether or not they engage in principaled journalism and maintain an editorial board to reflect that.
Not allowing interviews with candidates and elected officials or other video forms of content is a silly rule.
So who is “Sibel Edmonds” and what is “newsbud.com”?
Well… newsbud.com is a batshit right-wing conspiracy site, along the lines of Infowars. Even if they had an actual news site still going, which they don’t, they would be removed for being a bunch of tinfoil hat nutjobs and not actual news.
FORTUNATELY, the rule forbidding video content means that I, as a moderator, don’t have to do a deep dive in conspiracy bullshit to remove a post. Videos are not allowed. Full stop. They do not pass the bar.
If we allowed video, moderators would have to review each and every one picking winners and losers and the result would be some mods removing videos they didn’t like and keeping the videos they did like…
Which is exactly the kind of bad moderation you rail against.
The unbiased, fair approach is to say “No Videos”.
Or, as when someone approached me about the Kennedy Center livestream and asked me in a PM “Hey, how do I post the livestream video?”
I told them to find a recent article on the topic, link to that, and then put the livestream link in the body of the post.
Which they did, and that was a good thing because there was nothing to see on the livestream until 1:30 AM Pacific / 4:30 AM Eastern, and then they put up tarps so nobody could see anyone taking the Trump sign down.
As a top level post, that content would have been a 110% fail. So it’s a good thing they linked to an article with actual information and not just a video.
The same process can be used for video of legitimate interviews or debates, link to an actual news source discussing the candidates or issues involved, put the video link in the body or as a top level comment.
Anyone can put anything online, this isn’t unique to video
The “editorial oversight” of every major western media outlet has done fuck all to prevent them from publishing verifiably false information in support of US foreign policy over and over for longer than anyone here has been alive
How far into c/pol will I have to dig to find an article where it’s actually just an embedded video in an “article”, where the entirety of the article is the headline and the embedded video, which is actually a YouTube link?
I appreciate the points about the balance of effort regarding moderation but the point which you aren’t engaging with is that media and communication have adapted but the moderation approaches haven’t. And that creates a kind of implicit bias which can and does allow for a form of editorial manipulation of content. It bakes it into the structure of the community.
This is why communities like World and Politics require links to news articles that have some form of editorial oversight.
I completely support this and always have, but we exist in a landscape of completely changing conditions. Dropsite news now has a far stronger and more reliable commitment to the truth and to their own editorial policies than CNN. And I think they (dropsite) use a software for publication which you’ve decided makes them a blog, they get put on the naughty list, whereas several legacy media companies have become outright state propaganda outlets (CNN, fox, anything the Ellisons get their fingers on…). The result of the moderation policy which is effectively that anything built in new media isn’t allowed, is that only legacy sources get regarded as “news” , even if they don’t even follow their own editorial policies or have rewritten them to be appease a figurehead like Trump
The point is that a platform, or a medium, or the presence of an editorial policy isn’t sufficient to decide if something is news or isn’t news. For something to be news it actually has to have an editorial policy and engage with that policy. Being legacy media doesn’t immediately qualify to that standard and but being new media doesn’t preclude it either.
Take the recent hit piece on Platner in the NYT. It would meet the qualifications for c/politics. But it wouldn’t meet NYTs own editorial standards of journalism were they to actually enforce them.
I don’t want to disregard or ignore the labor of moderation and yes rules need to be sweeping and evenly applied. But it’s also clear that the current policy is anachronistic at best. Probably, as a community, message boards like Lemmy need to be thinking more broadly about how community rules are implemented and applied. Something like a red-yellow-green list for disapproved, pending, and ‘approved’ sources. And we’ve had that conversation before, about not wanting to maintain an approved list. But it’s 2026. It’s not out of reach where something could be built into a community where the community it’s self could maintain the list via voting.
I’m not bringing this up to badger, but I want to engage the point that the current moderation policies don’t effectively select for news content which is factual and consistent without the an editorial standard, but rather for what has traditionally been identified as legacy media based on format, and that more broadly, a format based approach will always suffer this kind of failing.
Probably not far, we’re volunteers and don’t have time to read EVERY link posted. We respond to reports and, if we happen to catch something obviously infringing in our browsing we remove that too.
If you see a link in the feed that breaks the rules, report it and we’ll resolve it. I remove “stub” articles all the time that only exist to point to a video.
But if I’m looking at the feed and the source is “Youtube.com” or some other video site, that gets yanked with a quickness.
For the Dropsite news thing, that has come up before, and yes, we block substack for the same reasons above.
But like Twitter and Facebook, yes, there are legitimate news agencies that use those platforms, as there are on Substack. But opening the door to those platforms again introduces bias in moderation.
“You removed my shitty Twitter link but allowed this other one!!! WHYYYYYYY!!!”
We aren’t engaging in that. So no, no social media, no blogs, no videos.
For me, it’s all manual, I don’t have the ability to apply bots to the feed, you’d have to talk to the Admins about that, above my paygrade, which is “$0.00”. LOL.
That community is on my block list for years so take this with a grain of salt since I know nothing about its current state, but video is a horrible format for news. It takes longer to skim, you can’t copy paste quotes or quickly confirm that something someone quotes or mentions is actually an accurate reflection of the video, there is less substance and what is there is likely to be more about evoking emotion than presenting information and ideas. Sometimes footage of an event is relevant, but usually that works way better embedded in the context of a text article. For a speech or interview, a transcript is more useful.
Video as format has been a standard since the 1950s. You might not prefer it, but as cameras became so cheap, it became ubiquitous. Whether we like it or not is secondary to whether or not it’s actually journalistic.
Now that can spiral a bit out of control in the modern media landscape where so much of media is derivative, and even more increasingly, derivative of derivative. For example, Hasans content falls into this bucket, where they are doing news and media analysis. They’re commenting on and criticism other forms of media which themselves are already secondary sources. Or even further they’re critiquing a critique of a critique and on and on. So as hollow as that might seem, it’s actually how discourse has always occured. Its a back and forth volley of critiques and points.
That’s fair, but imo the point of content being posted on a site like Lemmy is so it can be meaningfully discussed and reacted to using text, and a video, especially a longer video, makes that harder in various ways than something which is itself text, so regardless of the journalistic legitimacy of video it doesn’t seem like a bad requirement that news be presented as text.
Looking at you @jordanlund@lemmy.world. Video content isn’t just a legitimate and primary source of political news, it’s become the primary format for political news since before 2016. Not allowing it introduces a silly form of institutuional editorial bias. AND SPEAKING OF EDITORIAL BIAS, if a print media platform has an editorial board it should be an acceptable source, regardless if they are powered by WordPress, ghost, geocities or any other platform. Just because a company self-hosts their content it doesn’t make it any more legitimate than if a outlet uses an existing piece of software like substack to serve their content. The software shouldn’t be a factor in what counts as journalistic content, it should be whether or not they engage in principaled journalism and maintain an editorial board to reflect that.
Not allowing interviews with candidates and elected officials or other video forms of content is a silly rule.
The problem with video isn’t that it’s not a legitimate source for news, the problem is that ANYONE can put a video online.
Youtube does not do any sort of vetting or validation of content, and when you consider the volume of traffic they get, that is NOT surprising.
Same thing for social media like Facebook and Twitter.
Same thing for blog sites.
Any asshole can post up a Tweet or a Youtube or a blog.
This is why communities like World and Politics require links to news articles that have some form of editorial oversight.
Here’s a video link I removed yesterday:
https://youtu.be/lqR6NjEz2JY
So who is “Sibel Edmonds” and what is “newsbud.com”?
Well… newsbud.com is a batshit right-wing conspiracy site, along the lines of Infowars. Even if they had an actual news site still going, which they don’t, they would be removed for being a bunch of tinfoil hat nutjobs and not actual news.
FORTUNATELY, the rule forbidding video content means that I, as a moderator, don’t have to do a deep dive in conspiracy bullshit to remove a post. Videos are not allowed. Full stop. They do not pass the bar.
If we allowed video, moderators would have to review each and every one picking winners and losers and the result would be some mods removing videos they didn’t like and keeping the videos they did like…
Which is exactly the kind of bad moderation you rail against.
The unbiased, fair approach is to say “No Videos”.
Or, as when someone approached me about the Kennedy Center livestream and asked me in a PM “Hey, how do I post the livestream video?”
I told them to find a recent article on the topic, link to that, and then put the livestream link in the body of the post.
Which they did, and that was a good thing because there was nothing to see on the livestream until 1:30 AM Pacific / 4:30 AM Eastern, and then they put up tarps so nobody could see anyone taking the Trump sign down.
https://sh.itjust.works/post/61723313
As a top level post, that content would have been a 110% fail. So it’s a good thing they linked to an article with actual information and not just a video.
The same process can be used for video of legitimate interviews or debates, link to an actual news source discussing the candidates or issues involved, put the video link in the body or as a top level comment.
Anyone can put anything online, this isn’t unique to video
The “editorial oversight” of every major western media outlet has done fuck all to prevent them from publishing verifiably false information in support of US foreign policy over and over for longer than anyone here has been alive
Your methodology and priorities are laughable
We do remove other bullshit too, for example Tass, yes, they have editorial standards… from the Kremlin!
We’re probably going to start having a similar stand on CBS until Bari Weiss is inevitably removed.
That’s the nature of managing a community like this.
At the same time, the signal to noise ratio on video links, social media, and blogs is way, way too low to consider.
Are there good sources? Sure, a minority, but just because PBS has a Twitter account doesn’t mean we’re going to open that particular floodgate.
We can’t even say “blue checks only” since Musk fucked all THAT up.
So no. No video, no social media, no blogs. Don’t like it? Start your own community. Enjoy the spam.
How far into c/pol will I have to dig to find an article where it’s actually just an embedded video in an “article”, where the entirety of the article is the headline and the embedded video, which is actually a YouTube link?
I appreciate the points about the balance of effort regarding moderation but the point which you aren’t engaging with is that media and communication have adapted but the moderation approaches haven’t. And that creates a kind of implicit bias which can and does allow for a form of editorial manipulation of content. It bakes it into the structure of the community.
I completely support this and always have, but we exist in a landscape of completely changing conditions. Dropsite news now has a far stronger and more reliable commitment to the truth and to their own editorial policies than CNN. And I think they (dropsite) use a software for publication which you’ve decided makes them a blog, they get put on the naughty list, whereas several legacy media companies have become outright state propaganda outlets (CNN, fox, anything the Ellisons get their fingers on…). The result of the moderation policy which is effectively that anything built in new media isn’t allowed, is that only legacy sources get regarded as “news” , even if they don’t even follow their own editorial policies or have rewritten them to be appease a figurehead like Trump
The point is that a platform, or a medium, or the presence of an editorial policy isn’t sufficient to decide if something is news or isn’t news. For something to be news it actually has to have an editorial policy and engage with that policy. Being legacy media doesn’t immediately qualify to that standard and but being new media doesn’t preclude it either.
Take the recent hit piece on Platner in the NYT. It would meet the qualifications for c/politics. But it wouldn’t meet NYTs own editorial standards of journalism were they to actually enforce them.
I don’t want to disregard or ignore the labor of moderation and yes rules need to be sweeping and evenly applied. But it’s also clear that the current policy is anachronistic at best. Probably, as a community, message boards like Lemmy need to be thinking more broadly about how community rules are implemented and applied. Something like a red-yellow-green list for disapproved, pending, and ‘approved’ sources. And we’ve had that conversation before, about not wanting to maintain an approved list. But it’s 2026. It’s not out of reach where something could be built into a community where the community it’s self could maintain the list via voting.
I’m not bringing this up to badger, but I want to engage the point that the current moderation policies don’t effectively select for news content which is factual and consistent without the an editorial standard, but rather for what has traditionally been identified as legacy media based on format, and that more broadly, a format based approach will always suffer this kind of failing.
Probably not far, we’re volunteers and don’t have time to read EVERY link posted. We respond to reports and, if we happen to catch something obviously infringing in our browsing we remove that too.
If you see a link in the feed that breaks the rules, report it and we’ll resolve it. I remove “stub” articles all the time that only exist to point to a video.
But if I’m looking at the feed and the source is “Youtube.com” or some other video site, that gets yanked with a quickness.
For the Dropsite news thing, that has come up before, and yes, we block substack for the same reasons above.
But like Twitter and Facebook, yes, there are legitimate news agencies that use those platforms, as there are on Substack. But opening the door to those platforms again introduces bias in moderation.
“You removed my shitty Twitter link but allowed this other one!!! WHYYYYYYY!!!”
We aren’t engaging in that. So no, no social media, no blogs, no videos.
So right now you manually scrub to enforce the policies? Oof. Brother, we can definitely build some basic moderation bots which could help with that.
For me, it’s all manual, I don’t have the ability to apply bots to the feed, you’d have to talk to the Admins about that, above my paygrade, which is “$0.00”. LOL.
That community is on my block list for years so take this with a grain of salt since I know nothing about its current state, but video is a horrible format for news. It takes longer to skim, you can’t copy paste quotes or quickly confirm that something someone quotes or mentions is actually an accurate reflection of the video, there is less substance and what is there is likely to be more about evoking emotion than presenting information and ideas. Sometimes footage of an event is relevant, but usually that works way better embedded in the context of a text article. For a speech or interview, a transcript is more useful.
Well a few thoughts…
Video as format has been a standard since the 1950s. You might not prefer it, but as cameras became so cheap, it became ubiquitous. Whether we like it or not is secondary to whether or not it’s actually journalistic.
Now that can spiral a bit out of control in the modern media landscape where so much of media is derivative, and even more increasingly, derivative of derivative. For example, Hasans content falls into this bucket, where they are doing news and media analysis. They’re commenting on and criticism other forms of media which themselves are already secondary sources. Or even further they’re critiquing a critique of a critique and on and on. So as hollow as that might seem, it’s actually how discourse has always occured. Its a back and forth volley of critiques and points.
That’s fair, but imo the point of content being posted on a site like Lemmy is so it can be meaningfully discussed and reacted to using text, and a video, especially a longer video, makes that harder in various ways than something which is itself text, so regardless of the journalistic legitimacy of video it doesn’t seem like a bad requirement that news be presented as text.