So I posted an article from al Arabiya about Christian villages denying that they asked Netanyahu to annex their villages on World News@lemmy.world.
Jordanlund removed it simply because he don’t like the source. Yet he has no problem with articles from Saudi backed Iranian media https://irannewswire.org/ that also celebrate the terrorist group the MEK that sell out their country to side with Saddam and has no problem with israeli sources that deny the obvious genocide.
Because it was Mbfc.
Some integrity would be appreciated.
We looked at other options which were a) automated and b) free to implement. For one reason or another it didn’t work out.
But there’s nothing wrong with MBFC outside the minds of a few radicals on Lemmy.
Zero integrity. The arguments have been well made multiple times. This is just outright lying. And this is why no one trusts anything you say.
Not “no one” and as noted in my reply to Mr. Down, they are one of the experts on bias and credibility cited by other sources.
People are free to disagree, but they all come across like the Trumpies trying to argue that Snopes or Factcheck.org are biased. Or that reality is biased. 😆
https://ground.news/interest/iran-news-wire
"The Ground News media bias check for Iran News Wire is unknown. Scores are assigned by aggregating bias scores from Ad Fontes Media, Media Bias/Fact Check, and AllSides.
Is Iran News Wire credible or reliable? Our Factuality score answers both of those questions. When it comes to Iran News Wire, we’ve assigned a Unknown factuality rating. Ratings are assigned by aggregating scores from Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check."
Zionazis trust zionazis. Damn Jordan, if you want to be evil, just own it.
Nothing Zionist in my comments. I stand by everything I say attacking Israel and demanding war crimes tribunals.
Defending Israel and tone policing people calling out Israel’s atrocity makes you a Zionist. Making neoliberal excuses in favor of Israel in any way makes you a Zionist. You might’ve been able to get people to believe your lies and misdirection elsewhere but people here aren’t buying it.
No, it doesn’t. As a moderator, I enforce the clearly marked mission statements of the community.
Where those mission statements conflict with your notion of what is of is not appropriate in the discussion of Israel is not relevant.
When someone breaks the rules of the community, regardless of the position on Israel, the rules of the community come first.
Putting my opinion of “Yeah, but Israel are assholes, this time it’s OK” would make me the bad moderator everyone accuses me of.
The reason communities have rules is to take the personal opinion out of it.
So, someone makes a post:
Is it a banned topic? (Posting US internal news in World for example).
Is it a banned category? (Blog site, twitter, youtube, self post, image post).
Is the source a legitimate source? Tools to identify legitimate from illegitimate provided.
Does it link to the original source and does the headline match?
Pass all four bars and we are all good. These are incredibly simple “Yes/No” gates, the rules are posted and documented.
I just don’t believe you, I’m not keen on believing dishonest neoliberals. There’s a reason you’ve earned the reputation you’ve earned and I’ve seen the evidence presented against you. There is nothing you could say that would make me believe otherwise.
Whether you like it or not, being a Zionist apologist is not dependent on you accepting the term or even understanding you are one. It’s dependent on your behavior and your apologizing for Israel. Yes, liberal tone-policing discussion about genocide does count.
I never said the fact checkers are biased. I said they have zero autority with their obscure factchecking teams. You are a dogmatic person who can’t think by himself
Those three agencies are the industry standard for determining bias and credibility. You just can’t handle that 2/3 of them call your sources bullshit, and all three say the site you complain about being allowed does not have enough data.
All you had to do, literally, ALL you had to do was find better sources and the posts would have been allowed.
Instead, you decided to send angry PMs.
Look, here’s how easy it is:
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/07/05/netanyahu-says-some-lebanese-christian-villages-asked-to-be-annexed-by-israel_6755174_4.html
You DO know who Le Monde is, right? I found this in literally seconds.
Who decided they are industry standards? Why should i be forced to use your sources? Le monde has a ton of problematic content and controversies
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/10/le-monde-journalists-warn-of-threat-to-editorial-independence
Le Monde is one of three French “Newspapers of Record”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record
As for who put AllSides, MediaBias Fact Check and Ad Fontes in charge of determining real from fake news on the Internet? Well, the same people who put Snopes and FactCheck.org in charge of fact checking.
It’s a collective decision made by most thinking people on the Internet including other news organizations and institutions of higher education.
Which makes sense that you would reject it.
So when someone like this says “Go here:”
https://library.skagit.edu/medialiteracy/journalism
You can pretty much take them at their word. And when 2 out of three bias sites call you out on your bullshit and the only reason the 3rd one doesn’t is because of a paywall, you have two choices:
OR, your choice: