Looks like a case where poorly sourced article getting removed, with invitation to repost with a more reputable source… so do so with a better source. Or is the underlying article itself leaning too much towards propaganda that there is no more reputable source? and if that is the case, then is it really !news worthy?
And to be honest, I’m not a fan of sources reporting on themselves. Even if I considered this a reputable source (I have no opinion on it either way), I would want a third-party article.
Maybe read the article and make those determinations for yourself?
I can’t for the life of me understand why this particular article is so threatening to LW !news mods. It provides valuable insight into how Facebook’s community guidelines are experienced by journalists outside of the political mainstream and has useful lessons for why and how we might do things differently in the Fediverse.
It’s not threatening anyone… I don’t believe I’ve seen anywhere that the mods say or imply that. Also before anyone complain about singling people out, no, if I share anything from a non-reputable source, it’s going to get deleted, regardless of the subject. It’s about the quality of the source; the objective is to create a community sharing good trustworthy sources to improve the overall quality of content appearing on the community.
Again, you’ve been invited by the mods to repost from a more reputable source. If there aren’t any, then perhaps it is not !news worthy.
I can’t help but notice that Five singles out “lack of transparency” while ignoring “poor sourcing” and “one-sided reporting”. This is a common tactic.
Any responsible journalistic entity should be confirming their sources, and giving any accused a chance to give their own side of a story.
responsible journalistic entity
Where do you find those?
It’s true they’re getting very hard to find these days. I was very disappointed that even NBC the other day, reporting on the House investigation into Biden, had the gall to simply say that “the White House has not yet had a chance to comment”.
There’s a small handful of good ones still, though, depending on the niche you’re looking for. ProPublica is still an example of responsible journalism for instance.
I’ll check out ProPublica, thanks
Check the farm… I think that’s where all of them went to.
Where besides Dave’s assessment are you sourcing your information? Isn’t it one-sided to only listen to Dave M. Van Zandt’s opinion without doing additional investigation?
You do have a valid point. When I encounter something they are reporting that interests me, it would behove me to do further checking. There are other fact checking and news comparing services, and wikipedia usually has some good background information.
Additionally, I could check an article myself to make sure they actually do include an IDF statement in addition to any pro-Palestinian sources’ statements.
Looks more like you posted a garbage source?
edit - for example. Do you consider Fox News to report a balanced view? Or GBNews? Zerohedge?
Thecradle seems like a fine source, even MBFC doesn’t actually have arguments against it other than “left leaning”.
“Balanced” is some bullshit American view of media that isn’t related to factuallity.
Here at News Inc we offer only the most balanced views. After the break, our main story on why there are two sides to the Mai Lai Massacre, then we analyse the benefits of burning puppies for fuel.
Notice how TheCradle never failed a fact check? All those sources you listed have failed fact checks. That’s the difference.
That’s besides the point. Censorships on Lemmy is rampant and borderline oppressive. Posting an inoffensive news article in a forum that automatically allows the community to evaluate a 3rd party’s criticism(s) of that agencies credibility should be more than sufficient.
These non-experts declaring themselves the arbiters of truth is an embarrassment for the platform and need to be dealt with before it gets abandoned.
I even agree that Cradle is shit, but to end any possibility of discussion, in flagrant opposition to Lemmy’s ENTIRE PURPOSE just creates empty echo chambers
Censorships on Lemmy is rampant and borderline oppressive.
[citation needed]
These non-experts declaring themselves the arbiters of truth is an embarrassment for the platform and need to be dealt with before it gets abandoned.
Luckily then they’re not the “arbiters of truth” for the platform, eh? Just for the instance they own themselves. You are free to disagree with them, and not go to their garden parties any more. Doesn’t change that it’s their garden, and their party.
in flagrant opposition to Lemmy’s ENTIRE PURPOSE
Hrm… no. I tried, and nothing about the Lemmy site says that instance owners aren’t free to moderate their sites as they see fit. In fact that they can is cited as a benefit of the system, since everyone is also free to run their own instance.
(edit)
Look, I don’t even disagree, but no need to make shit up to call admins out for. The subject matter of the topic is enough to call them out for if you’re so inclined.Really, I need citations for a post that already provides an example? Just pick a server and look at the modlogs keyword: misinfo. Here’s a salient example:
Luckily then they’re not the “arbiters of truth” for the platform…
That’s actually a part of the problem. The complete lack of responsibility or accountability for anyone on here. Like it or not all it takes is a handful of self-righteous admins to ruin it for the entire platform. What you tout as a Good is quite the opposite in the long run.
Really, I need citations for a post that already provides an example?
The citation needed is about you saying its both rampant and oppressive, something the server logs don’t provide data for.
That’s actually a part of the problem. The complete lack of responsibility or accountability for anyone on here. Like it or not all it takes is a handful of self-righteous admins to ruin it for the entire platform. What you tout as a Good is quite the opposite in the long run.
But how is that different from any other website? Someone owns them, either an individual or a group. Naturally, they can just about do whatever they desire, including pulling the plug. And more specifically, how would you change that. Especially because:
- You still need moderation and administration. If for no other reason than should you grow big enough, you got obligations to provide this in regards to illegal, hateful and discriminatory speech and disinformation in the EU.
- Any moderation will sooner or later upset the moderated person.
- Any arbitration for this will inevitably come upon a case - see this thread - where it makes someone else partisan to either side.
So you’ll have this problem anyways. No matter what you do. With Lemmy in particular… run your own instance if you desire full control of moderation. That’s what you get that way. Just be aware that there’s a solid chance someone will be unhappy with your moderation at some point. Inevitably.
Here’s some more reading for you.
It’s not a matter of ‘being upset with a moderator’s decision’. Moderators are overstepping their mandate and it is a problem. Say something rude? Banned? Fine. Obviously against the rules. Politely say anything a core clique in that community disagrees with, factual or not, and there’s a non-zero chance you get your comment deleted at best because a mod+ disagrees, and it happens way too often.
But how is that different from any other website?
In other places there are extrinsic factors that influence how moderation is done. Reddit for example is concerned first and foremost with ensuring it is a place Ad agencies are comfortable working with. Reddit would strip moderators of their roles specifically because they weren’t doing their job right, and upsetting the community or ad agencies. More to the point: they have a Code of Conduct that is standardized for the ENTIRE platform. (AFAICT the problem with the mods being so problematic here is likely due to this mass exodus of incompetent mods from Reddit, but that is a hypothesis that needs further testing and out of my ability to research.)
At best this whole problem is that the Mods can’t be bothered to actually investigate reports, likely due to inadequate mod tools. Someone reports misinformation, or a troll, or rudeness and the accused gets punished with zero thought as to the veracity of the claim. I do not think that is it though. There are a couple mods who have a MO of abusing mod powers after verbally abusing a user just to get the final word, at least that I am aware of or experienced first hand.
And finally, I find the argument to ‘join the cartel of corrupt Mods if you don’t like it’… counterproductive. I personally do not want full control of moderation. I want moderation to be regulated/standardized because Lemmy atm is very much like the Old West.
Sure, but as long as modding is a volunteer position that won’t change. If for no other reason that like you say, it’s not a position that motivates you to investigate reports.
Couple that with how toxic and negative Lemmy is overall, and it doesn’t surprise me that the raw volume of reports will lead to a very high amount of “yeah, sure” bans with mininal investigation.
Plus the last part wasn’t meant as a “join in” thing, rather, if you desire an instance that does not abide by bad moderation, the fediverse puts the onus on you to create that instance. Everyone is free to do so, within some limitations such as - and that’s a very very valid thing - a need for adequate moderation tools.
“Siding with Marc Zuckerberg” is a pretty shitty argument. They may be evil but that doesn’t mean I oppose every single of their opinion.
I know MBFC is a controversial tool, but there must be some kind of moderation, otherwise you end up like !worldnews@lemmy.ml
Oh !worldnews@lemmy.ml does have moderation. The mods there are very deliberate in the things they do(n’t) allow. Woe betide you if you ever criticize certain historic (or current) authoritarian genocidal regimes.
Ask a socialist what’s wrong with Lemmy.world, they’ll give you a myriad of issues. Ask a capitalist what’s wrong with Lemmy.ml, they’ll describe Lemmy.world.
Maybe more fit for !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com or !fedidrama@lemmy.ca rather than here?
If you’d like to see it discussed elsewhere, you’re welcome to cross-post it.
This is part of culture clash between old social media culture and Fediverse norms. If moderators choose to censor this discussion as well, it’s only going to get bigger.
This is not just a Lemmy problem, as the same thing exists in Reddit, too, but crowd-sourced news sites like these are so problematic at their core that it got me to buy a news subscription to NYT. No, it is not news that JD Vance told his kid to “shut the hell up”.
Failed fact checks: none in the last five years
“Left biased.”
Exactly.
There’s simply no such thing as “nonpartisan fact-checking”. Everyone has a bias, even the “fact checkers”. It’s why the entire concept of “fact checkers” is stupid. If you don’t trust the source reporting the news, why trust the source who’s checking them?
In this particular case, it adds to the problem that naturally if you ask one side of a dispute whether they think it’s fair or not, they might be sliiiiiiightly biased…
I disagree, and that’s part of the reason I’m so strongly opposed to Lemmy.World’s use of Dave Van Zandt’s site in their bot. Fact-checking is an essential tool in fighting the waves of fake news polluting the public discourse. But if that fact-checking is partisan, then it only acerbates the problem of people divided on the basics of a shared reality.
This is why a consortium of fact-checking institutions have joined together to form the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), and laid out a code of principles. You can find a list of signatories as well as vetted organizations on their website. You can read more about those principles here.
MBFC is not a signatory to the IFCN code of principles. As a partisan organization, it violates the standards that journalists have recognized as essential to restoring trust in the veracity of the news. Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all. Just like how the proliferation of fake news undermines the authority of journalism, the growing popularity of a fact-checking site by a political hack like Dave M. Van Zandt undermines the authority of non-partisan fact-checking institutions in the public consciousness.
that’s part of the reason I’m so strongly opposed to Lemmy.World’s use of Dave Van Zandt’s site in their bot
You’re upset because their bot isn’t saying what you want it to say. That’s the problem. This bot is presenting itself as an authority on “facts”, as any “fact-checking” institution will do.
Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all.
Once again, there’s no such thing as nonpartisan fact-checking. Ergo, any fact-checking is worse than no fact-checking.
Want to fact-check? You’re gonna have to do it yourself by collecting facts from a variety of sources, because any single publisher or “fact-checking” authority is going to lie or mislead their audience and omit facts that don’t fit their narrative.
Lemmy.world news and politics subs are over ran by the same brain dead mods from reddit who are either shiti journalists or other “political/narrative” operatives.
Just block and stop engaging… Don’t feed these parasites.
ITT: liberals finally choosing to discard their last tether to reality because it doesn’t support their nihilist fascism-supporting warped world view
