I made an admittedly editorialized post, but that is allowed. There is no rule against editorializing titles. The link was to this excellent story by Erin Reed:
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/iowa-dem-josh-turek-releases-anti
The story documents the efforts of Democrat-in-Name-Only Josh Turek to graft Republican anti-trans policies and bigotry into the Democratic party. The (supposed) automoderator flagged the post and removed it for being a “substack post.” However, it was likely a manual removal as I would expect automoderator to work quickly, while this was up for hours.
The rule cited was:
“Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading.”
This article clearly meets this requirement. Erin in the Morning is an entire journalistic operation with multiple employees. I’m sure they’re incorporated in some form. Erin Reed is the most prominent trans rights journalist in the US, probably in the world. She’s nationally famous, has won numerous national journalism awards, and has a Wikipedia page. She frequently appears on national media and speaks at events of all kinds. She is one of the most prominent transgender people in the United States.
But apparently if you’re trans, to c/politics, regardless of what you accomplish, you can never be a real journalist, only a blogger. Real journalism is for cis people only.
PTB. We all know why it’s getting removed, the mods want to protect transphobic Dems against legitimate criticism.
I think this is a crusade against substack more than an agenda thing.
At best, it’s that the rules of the comm are biased towards corporate sites. Like, “we’re not suppressing this story specifically, we’re just suppressing anything CNN doesn’t talk about and this just happened to get caught in that general policy of non-coporate suppression.”
Nope, if it were an actual news article and not a blog it would be fine. Read the rules of the group.
So change rule 2?
No. Rule 2 is there for a reason.
If we start picking winners and losers among blogs, that’s the bias everyone here is bitching about.
The only FAIR policy is no fucking blogs.
Which is what constantly happens yet only you on the team have a hate boner for blogs
So news that’s not reported on by corporate media is just not allowed to be discussed.
There are more sites than just “corporate media” that are allowed. We just don’t allow sites that have zero editorial control.
Any dipshit can start a Substack. That doesn’t make it “news”.
Right, and “any dipshit” can run a campaign ad for a senate race they’re running in, and that doesn’t count as “news” because it’s in a video format. Have to give our corporate overlords the chance to process everything through their preferred lens, or to just ignore it entirely.
Also can’t post links to campaigns as that isn’t news, even if it’s related or relevant because it’s not news on a political comm
I don’t understand how Jordan still has defenders
Because there’s a lot of people on his side politically and who believe in helping the Dems win by any means. I had a lib on here openly tell me that lying to promote a Dem is fine, and even mock me for correcting misinformation.
Most of them are smart enough to not be so blatant about it. More often, it takes the form of pretending that they care about things like genocide, because they believe they can more effectively reach people on the left that way, compared to voicing their actual opinions. The reality is they only care about their tribe.
Suppressing a negative story about someone in their tribe is par for the course. “The ends justify the means.”
Blue maga