210
New Sidebar Rule: (lemmy.world)
submitted 10 months ago by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

We've had to create a new sidebar rule, we won't be enacting it retroactively because that just doesn't seem fair, but going forward:

  • Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They're telling me they were reporting articles which didn't match the community's policy on reliability according to MBFC credibility crating and that the moderator in question refused to respond constructively.

Edit: I don't have the DMs from either side, which might help tell the story lol

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

They were reporting sites like the Washington Post which is a newspaper of record with a high credibility rating.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/

When the links they posted which were removed were from the South China Morning Post.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/south-china-morning-post/

Basically they wanted to post Chinese propaganda and got butthurt that they weren't allowed to.

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

SCMP is considered pretty reliable by most Western media outlets. It's still used as a source for Reuters news wires and Associated Press articles. It's still banned in mainland China for being too "edgy" or whatever, and the Hong Kong government still bars them from many events for "security reasons." It's still used by the Canadian Armed Forces College in their news feed SOMNIA. It's used by Bloomberg, which many financial folks over on State Street use as a source to trade billions of dollars on.

Their op-eds are more, well, opinionated and editorialized than in the past, but anybody submitting op-eds to a news community needs to reconsider doing so in the first place. If you evaluated WaPo or the NYT solely off of their op-eds, you'd think you were reading a rag like the Daily Mail.

If Reuters, Associated Press, Bloomberg, and the Canadian Armed Forces rely on SCMP, what makes the moderators of this community think they know better?

Edit: FWIW, Reuters also uses WaPo as a source.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
210 points (88.0% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2205 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS