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.

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    5 hours ago

    You’ve done how many edits to explain why it was fine for Jordan to remove out of nowhere

    No.

    My original comment said, functionally, that at worst “YDI” because it’s a violation of the rule, and that at best (assuming what they’re saying about being worked on by a proper team, being incorporated, etc. is true) that the correct course of action was to contact the mod first to clarify those things.

    My original comment established from the get-go that either at worst the post should’ve been removed and stayed removed or at best that it toed the line so heavily that it was reasonable for a mod to have removed it and that it’s on them to reach out to the mod to argue for reconsideration. That is, my original comment is explaining it wasn’t “out of nowhere”.

    My first edit was having actually looked into the claims that they were making – namely that EITM is coordinated by some sort of team working as a company – and argued that that’s false or at least has zero evidence presented in the OP or that I could find in the wild. This edit only exists because the OP seemingly made shit up about EITM to make their case look more credible, where evidence indicates EITM is just functionally a blog written by two people.

    And finally, my second edit points out that it’s objectively violating another rule entirely. This was its own edit because I actually assumed good faith of the OP at first and thought they weren’t outright lying about the whole title thing. Thus, I didn’t bother to look at /c/politics’ rules around titles. Turns out, yeah, they just lied, there is a rule, and their title violated it completely.

    It’s pretty clear at this point that you’re engaging in bad faith. You’re portraying an attempt to be thorough and actually examine the OP’s claims in good faith as somehow bending over backwards to defend the mod, and you expressly don’t give a shit about the factual claims made in the OP.

    Like, dude, if my goal was just “how do I defend the mod in this situation”, do you really think I’d choose to assume that ridiculous title was a-okay because the OP said so, not even try checking the other rules, and focus solely on the merits of whether they violated Rule 2? No, because I went into this asking “If I were a mod in this community, would I have removed this post for violating Rule 2?” And the two original answers I came up with were basically 1) “Yes” and 2) “Yes, but I could see myself reinstating it if they messaged me and provided evidence that I was wrong about the nature of the source.”

    • goferking (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      5·
      4 hours ago

      Like, dude, if my goal was just “how do I defend the mod in this situation”, do you really think I’d choose to assume that ridiculous title was a-okay because the OP said so, not even try checking the other rules, and focus solely on the merits of whether they violated Rule 2? No, because I went into this asking “If I were a mod in this community, would I have removed this post for violating Rule 2?” And the two original answers I came up with were basically 1) “Yes” and 2) "Yes, but I could see myself reinstating it if they messaged me and provided evidence that I was wrong about the nature of the source

      This has been the standard MO for world mods whenever Jordan is brought up so yes. The entire point is you’re giving someone who deserves no benefit of the doubt for multiple reasons that benefit and now attacking those people who are tired of their continuous actions like this while also ignoring the context.

      And this is still you blaming the poster for not groveling before Jordan

      Although it still doesn’t seem like you tried to message the mods before this for clarification or to try and appeal, which is the main point – namely that you’re assuming transphobic bad faith without at least trying to talk with them first given your post at best toes the line.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        4 hours ago

        This has been the standard MO for world mods whenever Jordan is brought up so yes.

        Lmao, like lemmy.world mods are part of some cabal who circle the wagons around one mod.

        I don’t know if it’s possible for you not to project an obsession with this one rando on the backwater of the Internet onto me, but:

        • I went into this post not even knowing who the removing mod is. The post doesn’t say, I didn’t look, and I’m not chronically online enough to have made any assumptions. Your comment, after I’d already read the post and considered my response, was what told me this was Jordan.
        • I barely know who Jordan is. I think I’ve ever interacted with them a few times, and that drama with them a while back (I think it had to do with them power tripping and being a Zionist? I can’t remember) pretty much passed me by from what I can remember. I have no compelling baseline reason to want to defend them for anything they say or do.
        • One thing I do vaguely remember about the drama is Jordan’s power tripping being protected by the LW admins, which is maybe where you’re getting the idea to blame the mods. In reality, a community I moderate and the one I care about the most, !vegan@lemmy.world, was the target of a power-tripping LW admin who was protected by the other admins. I’ve let that be a bygone, but I have no particular allegiance to the admin team, their actions, or who they choose to associate with. I leave them alone, they leave me alone, and that’s been the status quo for I think over a year now.

        TL;DR: I could not have given less of a shit who removed the post. I cared about what the OP wrote in their post, which was “The post was removed claiming a Rule 2 violation. I don’t think it was a Rule 2 violation, and here’s why.”

        • goferking (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
          3·
          2 hours ago

          Lmao, like lemmy.world mods are part of some cabal who circle the wagons around one mod.

          The power mods and admins absolutely do.

          TL;DR: I could not have given less of a shit who removed the post. I cared about what the OP wrote in their post, which was “The post was removed claiming a Rule 2 violation. I don’t think it was a Rule 2 violation, and here’s why.”

          Yet you’re upset with me calling out a ptb. I think you care more than you let on