• jordanlund@lemmy.world
    2425·
    9 days ago

    It’s not about censoring anyone, it’s removing invalid sources. If they get re-hosted through a legitimate news site like Al Jazeera, fantastic. Go for it.

    But we aren’t going to allow the community to be filled with bullshit blog sources.

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
      235·
      8 days ago

      Dropsitenews, a site ran by two top ex-journalists from TheIntercept, is a “blog site” because it is published on SubStack?

      This is clearly gatekeeping so only mainstream media sources are allowed and no independent journalists.

      You do not get to decide what is and what is not journalism. You are refusing to provide factual errors in the reporting and instead go for a cheap cop-out.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        520·
        8 days ago

        Yes, as I stated previously, we aren’t engaging in “buh buh you allowed that OTHER link, why not miiiiiine?” Blog sites aren’t allowed, full stop.

        • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
          145·
          8 days ago

          You are already banning certain websites and not allowing others at the discretion of a rating system operated by a Zionist. MBFC is rated by Wikipedia as unreliable source. Yet this does not seem to bother your “factuality”.

          There are not a thousand independent journalists and news outlets popping up on Substack and people keep posting different ones. There only a handful actual journalists on there not writing opinion articles but doing real reporting.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.world
            114·
            8 days ago

            Again, show me where MBFC says something is Questionable when they are not. This is the second time I’m asking you.

              • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                111·
                8 days ago

                Don’t care. Show me where a source they mark “Questionable” is not, in fact, Questionable.

                • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
                  101·
                  8 days ago

                  Mondoweiss – Bias and Credibility

                  QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

                  Overall, we rate Mondoweiss as Left Biased and Questionable due to the blending of opinion with news, the promotion of pro-Palestinian and anti-zionist propaganda, occasional reliance on poor sources, and hate group designation by third-party pro-Israel advocates. (D. Van Zandt 3/4/2017) Updated (12/07/2023)

                  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                    29·
                    8 days ago

                    Mondoweiss is a trash source, try again.

                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondoweiss

                    In 2015, David Bernstein, writing for The Washington Post, called the website a “hate site”, and listed quotes from Weiss that he said were anti-Semitic. This included Weiss’ claim that “the Israel lobby … reflected a contract the American establishment had made with Jews to drive the economy in the 1970s”,[62] which Bernstein likened to a belief in an “Elders of Zion type group”. It was also described as a hate site in the book Anti-Zionism on Campus by Andrew Pessin.[63]

                    According to Elliot Kaufman, the Vice President of Cardinal for Israel, a Stanford University group, writing in The Stanford Review, Mondoweiss “often publishes astonishingly anti-Semitic material, using classic anti-Semitic imagery such as depicting Jews as spiders, cockroaches, or octopuses with tentacles controlling others, and Holocaust inversion. Its hatred of Israel is as deep as it is vicious.”[64]

                  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                    16·
                    7 days ago

                    Guardian isn’t “Questionable”.

                    “MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY”

                    We’d allow that.

              • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                28·
                8 days ago

                Irrelevant as they are a blog site and we do not allow blog sites.

                But you’re continuing to dodge the question, as usual. Your argument is MBFC can’t be relied on. Show me an example of them being unreliable.

                Specifically, identify a source they say we should remove that we should actually be keeping. 3rd time asking.

                They’re either incredibly biased or they aren’t. If they are incredibly biased you should be able to prove that in short order.

                If you CAN’T prove that, and it sure seems like you can’t, then it’s long past time you STFU about MBFC.