This is one of the things that grates me the most about these kind of discussions. One person is adamant about something and when given proof that they are wrong there is no acceptance or apology.
There are no more discussions where people change their minds, there are only monologues and running away when the conversation does not go the way they want.
Tons of us moved away from .world ages ago, some of the mods and admin team are indeed highly biased.
I don’t want to get into a back-and-forth, just explaining from a 3rd party (former .world, former kbin user) view that the .world team are neoliberal shills who do their best to shape the narrative to support the current status quo.
Your first article is not allowed. It is an opinion piece and the mods would remove it if reported.
Your second article refer a genocide case and doesn’t call it a genocide.
So in both examples you’re wrong.
Websites such as Zeteo and Dropsitenews, which call it a genocide outside of op-eds are not allowed. Websites which lie about the genocide such as New York Times are.
Your first article explicitly breaks the rules and the mods seem to have been sleeping because normally they remove opion posts.
Your second article doesn’t call it a genocide. It mentions a genocide case.
In both cases the MiddleEastEye editorial staff doesn’t call it a genocide. There’s NYT opinion articles calling it a genocide as well. An opinion piece is specifically not by the newspaper.
Here’s what it looks like when editorial staff calls it a genocide
It happens to call the genocide a genocide quite explicitly in one of the subheadings. So far, it’s up.
My understanding is that the mods of that community are a bit unreasonable (not to mention rude) with some perfectly reputable news sources based on the publishing platform used. Specifically I have seen the mods characterize Dropsite and Zeteo as “blogs” 😒🙄 because of using Substack as a publishing platform. This is annoying but from what I’ve read it has a …non-deplorable internal logic that I can tolerate, at least so far. But I wouldn’t go so far as to characterize the community as structurally and intentionally hostile, the way Twitter/X is.
X doesn’t necessarily have a better community. But the amount of censorship is a lot lower and there’s less arbitrary thought policing. (Though there have been reports of European users not being able to see pictures lately.)
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
MBFC says:
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
I.e., not Low or Very Low in either of the metrics the Rule mentions. So, I don’t see how it breaks the rule.
Do the articles you’re allowed to post call it genocide?
Here are two of my most recent ones, with the word in the title:
I have posted other ones that refer to genocide in the text. I frequently refer to the genocide as a genocide in my comments in .world communities.
So again, what are you talking about?
This is one of the things that grates me the most about these kind of discussions. One person is adamant about something and when given proof that they are wrong there is no acceptance or apology.
There are no more discussions where people change their minds, there are only monologues and running away when the conversation does not go the way they want.
Because they’re from the server where massacres get renamed to incidents and they get praised as correct reactions. What did you expect?
Tons of us moved away from .world ages ago, some of the mods and admin team are indeed highly biased.
I don’t want to get into a back-and-forth, just explaining from a 3rd party (former .world, former kbin user) view that the .world team are neoliberal shills who do their best to shape the narrative to support the current status quo.
I responded to him below if you’re curious. They are wrong.
Your first article is not allowed. It is an opinion piece and the mods would remove it if reported.
Your second article refer a genocide case and doesn’t call it a genocide.
So in both examples you’re wrong.
Websites such as Zeteo and Dropsitenews, which call it a genocide outside of op-eds are not allowed. Websites which lie about the genocide such as New York Times are.
You just moved the goalposts.
Your first article explicitly breaks the rules and the mods seem to have been sleeping because normally they remove opion posts.
Your second article doesn’t call it a genocide. It mentions a genocide case.
In both cases the MiddleEastEye editorial staff doesn’t call it a genocide. There’s NYT opinion articles calling it a genocide as well. An opinion piece is specifically not by the newspaper.
Here’s what it looks like when editorial staff calls it a genocide
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/drop-site-daily-ipc-israel-gaza-netanyahu-hamas-trump-ice
Today I posted this: https://lemmy.ca/post/50357968
It happens to call the genocide a genocide quite explicitly in one of the subheadings. So far, it’s up.
My understanding is that the mods of that community are a bit unreasonable (not to mention rude) with some perfectly reputable news sources based on the publishing platform used. Specifically I have seen the mods characterize Dropsite and Zeteo as “blogs” 😒🙄 because of using Substack as a publishing platform. This is annoying but from what I’ve read it has a …non-deplorable internal logic that I can tolerate, at least so far. But I wouldn’t go so far as to characterize the community as structurally and intentionally hostile, the way Twitter/X is.
Not an allowed source on there as it’s rated ‘medium’ by the Zionist rating site. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-canary-uk/
X doesn’t necessarily have a better community. But the amount of censorship is a lot lower and there’s less arbitrary thought policing. (Though there have been reports of European users not being able to see pictures lately.)
The rule says:
MBFC says:
I.e., not Low or Very Low in either of the metrics the Rule mentions. So, I don’t see how it breaks the rule.
I’ve seen anything under “high credibility” get booted.
Dropsitenews adheres to the rules too. They make them up as they go.