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.
He’s a dickhead, find a better sub.
This doesn’t take anything away from the mod’s actions or .world’s moderation, but as an Arab, I can confirm that alarabiya is indeed very questionable
I have my own critisism of it . The article has the denial in the title so I decided to post that particular article
LW has terrible moderation, I recommend !world@quokk.au
Look, I don’t like World, but they’re clear about how they judge a source.
I made my news communities because I don’t like their system, but for a com that big they need to draw a line when they can’t individually verify everything.
I don’t like their politics and I don’t like where they draw those lines, but they’re transparent in how they decide what stays.
Being an asshole to the mod, no matter who they are, doesn’t help.
My communities are small but you’re welcome to post to them as long as you follow the guidelines.
No they wasn’t clear. Nothing in the rule mention using a specific fact check to determine what should be allowed or not . If you have no proof that the news is a lie you can’t simply remove it
Being an asshole to the mod, no matter who they are, doesn’t help.
I admit I got carried away
My communities are small but you’re welcome to post to them as long as you follow the guidelines.
Your guideline regarding credibility of the source is as vague as worldnews.
I clarify it in the asterisk but credibility is vague. I use fact-checking sources but don’t rely on them fully because even fact-checks can have a bias. If you know of a better way to moderate a news community I’d genuinely like to hear it.
edit: World news links mediabias and an article on propaganda in their sidebar. It’s easy to infer that’s how they judge content.
Moderate based on individual articles. Do the specific article pushed a lie and defend the in defensive like genocide, colonization, war crimes etc
That is what I do because I have less than 2k subscribers across all my communities, but I need to say something in the sidebar related to how I verify an article and how to determine what’s a lie, which is where fact-checks come in.
Defending colonization, war crimes and genocide are fuzzy lines to draw. Sometimes news is spun by omitting facts, so an article that seems harmless can be subliminally pro-isreal when given context.
The point is, it’s very hard to verify sources on that level for as big a community as World.
Everybody knows a source like timesofisrael deny genocide yet it is allowed but an source like an arabiya is not. It is pure hypocrisy
I never said I agreed with their methods. According to the fact checking link in their sidebar your souce isn’t trustworthy. Again, I don’t support it, but I do understand why they use mediabias to check sources.
I fully support making more, smaller news communities to get a greater diversity of media on lemmy, and encourage you to either post to them or make your own.
He has. Apologia Free News.
I have to admit to doing a doubletake every time timesofisrael comes up. “That cannot be legit, right?”
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/times-israel-media-bias
“After a discussion including other team members, AllSides reviewers did not find The Times of Israel to exhibit strong bias in favor of Israel in its news coverage of Israel’s war with Hamas. The publication did refer to Hamas members as “terrorists” and some of their statements or media as “propaganda,” however did not appear to frame things in a way that is overly favorable to the Israeli establishment or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu either.”
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-israel/
“Overall, we rate the Times of Israel as Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that slightly favor the left. We also rate them as Mostly Factual rather than High due to one-sided pro-Israel reporting regarding Palestine. (D. Van Zandt 12/5/2016) Updated (12/13/2024)”
Again who gave any of those sites authority. Why you can’t use your own brain to determine what it look like biased or not with actual proofs regarding a specific article. Yes a source that deny facts like the genocide in gaza is not legit
We are unpaid volunteers with actual lives outside Lemmy, we don’t have time to read each individual article. This is why fact checking sites exist.
Mediabiasfactcheck is a poor measure.
The case has been made many times for at least the last two years. They’ll never change it and will throw whatsoever nonsense to defend it. No good faith argument has ever been had from him on anything of import.
From any of the mods.
You have a lot of times defending your self in this community but no time to be fair
I was fair, I told you twice to find better sources.
You are not fair. You remove an article without any evidence of propaganda or lies. Your fact check do not mention a single example of el Arabiya biases towards Lebanon
Such a glorious Modlog:
https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=21821311
The first “news” source that was posted and removed:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-arabiya/
“Overall, we rate Al Arabiya as Questionable due to excessive government censorship that results in the publication of pro-state propaganda. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the omission of key facts in stories. (8/16/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 10/06/2023)”
The second questionable site posted and removed:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-national-uae/
“Overall, we rate The National Questionable based on poor sourcing, promotion of state propaganda, lack of transparency, and censorship. (8/29/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 06/06/2025)”
And finally the PM he sent me that caught him the permaban in World:
“fuck you and your whole family you piece of trash”
@mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com - You are the poster child for the exact kind of user we do not tolerate.
As for Irannewswire - There’s no consensus as to their credibility, UNLIKE the sources listed above which are clearly questionable.
I’m not removing a site that does not appear to have that consensus.
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."
So much for a “real life.” Go live it.
Daily!
Gonna take your side in this one
Since when your shitty fact check has authority on what is a questionable source and which is not? Maybe you should use your own judgment or maybe you don’t do it because you are bad at it. Why should a source like Irannewswire be trusted and not questionable when they are defending the MEK terrorists who fought along Saddam in the iraq/iran war?
When Iran News Wire actually has data showing they are untrustworthy I will have no problem removing them too.
Right now, the aggregate from across the three arbiters of truth when it comes to bias and credibility, AdFontes, MediaBias Fact Check, and AllSides is that they are a cipher.
That is not a removable offense.
The fucking BBC is untrustworthy based on everything we’ve seen them publish about pissrahell and the war on Iran yet it is considered credible? Get a grip
Using words like “pissrahell” exposes your own inherent bias.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6588617-if-you-run-into-an-asshole-in-the-morning-you
"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you’re the asshole.
Raylan Givens Justified"
fuck the state of Israel, and anyone who attempts to normalise its atrocities, and suppress the gruesome reality of the situation in favor of state-backed narratives and polite fictions. that is the predictable end result of your policies, especially when pissrael has gone to great lengths to kill every last credentialed palestinian journalist it can get its hands on. its pretty difficult for murdered journalists to publish enough articles to compete with the combined state media apparatus of israel and the us billionaire class, but what can you do? your hands are tied, I guess. standards, right?
and anyway, this notion that establishment papers are still bastions of journalistic integrity is wishful thinking at best. how can we trust what comes out of the bought-and-paid-for subservient mouthpieces of the billionaires class? that whole model is fundamentally broken, in the same way the 2-party system is broken. its a rigged game, built to support those in power, not to challenge them. good journalism speaks truth to power. how much of that are we seeing from the mainstream rags?
They are still better sources than random blogs, twitter links, and youtube channels with no provenance or editorial standards.
Israeli atrocities ARE being reported, and have been for decades. You know what? The vast majority of the public simply is not aware, or if they are aware, they do not care.
I thought the Rachel Corrie killing back in 2003 was going to move the needle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie
Blonde, American, young woman… Israel bulldozed her to death while she was engaging in peaceful protest.
The public? Silence.
Bias to the truth. Israel is a pissy and shitty state
True, but saying the BBC is untrustworthy because they won’t call Israel “Pissrahell” is a bad faith argument.
We get it, they have actively been engaging in war crimes for my entire lifetime, but the BBC is not ignoring or condoning what they are doing:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1eyyyl8ye0o
Bbc is untrustworthy because it got exposed for policing pro palestine voices
Rhe other didn’t say bbc should have called israel pissrael and got mad because it didn’t
True, but saying the BBC is untrustworthy because they won’t call Israel “Pissrahell” is a bad faith argument.
so obviously not my argument… 🙄 wonder why no one is talking to you in good faith? Its shit like this…
A media that never criticized israel and the usa involvement in the war. Couldn’t even write a full article condemning the bombing of the school during the war and also include the MEK a terrorist group as a resistance group is trustworthy? A media denying genocide like timeofisrael is trustworthy ?
Your biases are very clear. There is no such a think as arbiters of truth either.
Goddamnit, I have to take your side on this one.
edit: This could have been a win for you if you just stopped here. You make it really hard to say you’re right about something.
edit: This could have been a win for you if you just stopped here. You make it really hard to say you’re right about something.
They have never been able to do that, which is one reason they continue to prove they should not be a mod of anything.
My favorite is still them saying amp links were banned, not because they are terrible for the internet but because the stupid mbfc bot couldn’t handle them.
yeahhh he is like that. he has been featured in this place quite a few times and still mods a lot of instances.
large ego mixed with a small amount of power. you know how it be.
The key is immature users with issues cannot stand being told “No”.
The community has clear, specific rules. When posts break the rules, they get removed. Some people handle it well, make corrections, and become valued members of the community…
And then there are others…
The community has vague rules . You neither have a list of banned website and no mention of fact checkers either
From the sidebar:
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Also from the sidebar:
Recommendations
How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
As noted above:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-arabiya/
“Overall, we rate Al Arabiya as Questionable due to excessive government censorship that results in the publication of pro-state propaganda. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the omission of key facts in stories. (8/16/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 10/06/2023)”
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-national-uae/
“Overall, we rate The National Questionable based on poor sourcing, promotion of state propaganda, lack of transparency, and censorship. (8/29/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 06/06/2025)”
Your sidebar has zero mention on how it is determined. Bbc was exposed for policing palestinians voices making them questionable. Timeofisrael deny genocide making them questionable. Unlike you , i have a brain to make my own judgement rather than relying on a random fact check site with no real autority
Sidebar:
"Recommendations
How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link"
Jordanlund is the ultimate PTB on this network, surpassing even the odious Pugjesus
(I blocked both of them so I won’t see any malding replies if they come)
According to world admins nothing he can do will get him removed.
That’s why it’s Nazi.world
PTB. The sub exists to reinforce the imperial narrative. That’s why they enforce hegemonic sources, hegemonic language, etc. No “editorializing”, etc. It’s run by a zionist, right? Shit’s a joke.
LOL - Yeah… “such a Zionist…”
https://lemmy.world/post/48433336/24362065
Here’s the problem from a moderation perspective:
The lemmy audience is HEAVILY pro-Palestinian (and everyone should be!)
It is NOT pro-Israel.
So when people roll up breaking the rules about calls for violence, murder, execution they are virtually ALL pro-Palestinian.
There have been comments attempting to justify the genocide which were removed, but they were a vast, vast minority and mostly in the early days when the numbers of dead were still open to question.
Because the removed rule breaking comments lean heavily on the pro-Palestinian side, it gives the appearance of bias.
But I’m not going to let a rule breaking post stand just because I agree with it, or because “Israel deserves it”.
Most of them support resistance against colonialism and genocide and not the target of civilians. You made a fool of yourself by removing death to a colonial power military comments directly involved in genocide
That wasn’t even a community rule, that’s a lemmy.world rule:
https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
"1. Attacks on people or groups
Before using the website, remember you will be interacting with actual, real people and communities. Lemmy.World is not a place for you to attack other people or groups of people. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t give you the right to harass them. Discuss ideas and be critical of principles. Show the respect you desire to receive.
We do not tolerate serious threats or calls for violence."
(bolding mine)
There is nothing about defending people right to resist the occupying forces
When it comes to calling for death that’s a TOS violation.
It is a call for resisting a colonial power doing genocide. Under international laws palestinians has the right to kill soldiers trying to kill them
They have the right to do that, YOU don’t have the right to call for it on a privately owned network in violation of TOS.
Fash gonna fash, what do you expect
Removed by mod
and when lemmy.ml does it it is a problem too.
My moderated comment is a problem too.
You personally insulted me so you deserve it
I don’t appreciate certain mod styles and complaining about personal insults after DMing a personal insult could have been omitted.
I like and respect you enough to say this and trust you will consider it in good faith.
You deserve to be personally insulted.
