Skip Navigation
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards @lemmy.dbzer0.com Viking_Hippie @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Jordan Lund at it again

Context:

The article in question was well sourced, factually accurate, and written by a well-renowned author and journalist whose work appears elsewhere too, regardless of which outlet published it.

Nonetheless, Jordan Lund is once again blindly trusting a pro-zionist conservative outlet masquerading as a bias and fact checker that nothing from anywhere that criticizes the fascist apartheid regime can be reliable 🤦

82

You're viewing a single thread.

82 comments

  • You're putting a lot of effort into defending a shitty source.

    To be clear, I DON'T CARE who wrote the article. Shitty sources don't deserve the traffic.

    It could be a nobel prize winner, if it's on a questionable source, it's getting removed.

    Put on your big boy pants and find a better source.

    Edit If you CAN'T find a better source on the same story, it's an opportunity to step back ask ask why...

    • You're putting a lot of effort into defending a shitty source.

      Nope. I'm defending the ARTICLE, which has nothing to do with the more reasonable reasons to distrust Mintpress

      To be clear, I DON'T CARE who wrote the article.

      You REALLY should. Sometimes great journalists don't have the luxury of being picky about who publishes their work.

      The post is about the article and, other than not fawning over Israel, the article doesn't exemplify any of the "offenses" MBFC accuses it of.

      Shitty sources don't deserve the traffic.

      Great articles do. If anything, limiting access to the good things an otherwise questionable publisher posts reduces their incentive to publish more of that kind and less clickbaity mis/disinformation.

      It could be a nobel prize winner, if it's on a questionable source, it's getting removed

      That's 100% grade A horseshit and against the REASON to have the rule in the first place. It would behoove you to reconsider such an arbitrarily rigid approach.

      Put on your big boy pants and find a better source.

      Take off your scolding cap and stop censoring good articles for arbitrary reasons.

      Edit If you CAN'T find a better source on the same story, it's an opportunity to step back ask ask why...

      If it had been an opinion piece or breaking news making questionable claims, sure. This is neither of that and well-sourced, though, so would be more akin to dismissing a movie for being an exclusive of a streaming service you don't like.

    • You shielded universalmonk and routinely banned other people for minor insults

      • Universal Monk knew right where the line was, when they crossed it, they were gone.

        Others didn't care where the line was.

        • Not true. You thought you knew just how to defend their disgusting and transparent motives but they were indefensible. A chorus of many people shouted loudly for weeks and it finally had an impact.

          How do I know it wasn't true? From a million miles away that was an obvious troll and that was specifically breaking the rules.

          Life has been better for me since I blocked the politics sub.

          • No, the mods discussed their account multiple times and each time reached the conclusion they were not breaking the rules... until they did, and when they did, they got booted.

            There's a lot behind the scenes that you aren't aware of.

            Life has been better since you blocked politics? Must have happened after you got banned:

            https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=1413078

            • This is such a weird point of view. The mods don't "own" the space. It's not your server. You're the representatives of the community. It's very weird for the community to speak with an overwhelming voice that they want someone banned because they are toxic and unhinged (and also, breaking the objectively stated rules of the community, with things like how many articles posted per day), and for the mods to say, "No, we decided they stay." Them eventually deciding to ban, after the behavior got even more objectively unacceptable, doesn't excuse it.

              It's like the difference between how Trump runs the government and how a normal president runs the government. Trump doesn't "own" the country. He has a responsibility for it. The ownership, but not the responsibility, is what makes someone bad in a leadership position. It's not to say you need to automatically accede to any loud contingent of the community that's yelling about something. But UM was about as clear-cut a case as it is possible to get, and I cannot for the life of me understand someone who's entrusted to keep a community of people a good place, who decides to come out and tell the members of that community "No, we've decided that this person needs to stay in the community, and we don't care what you think about it." I have no idea who these moderators are who are looking at UM's behavior and deciding "yeah that's not rule-breaking," let alone a consensus of them.

              I think it is, in part, a product of the weirdly off-kilter incentives that exist on the modern volunteer internet. I sort of suspect that what's going on is that every human being kind of has an internal mental model of how much the rest of the community "owes" them, and that colors their behavior and how they adhere to the social contract. In places where someone feels like the community has "given them so much," that kind of thing, they'll really have respect and good dealing in almost everything. They'll fight hard to keep the community as a good place. They won't fall back on bullshit excuses like "well he's not breaking any rules (today)."

              I do see the other side of it. I think almost any moderator on the modern internet gets put upon by so much thankless crap on a day-to-day basis (some of which you touched on elsewhere ein these comments) that your what-I-owe-the-users meter is absolutely pegged at "0" only because it can't go lower. I get that. I don't think it's really wrong for you to feel that way. I have a lot of sympathy for what mods do and it's a pretty critical part of keeping the community okay. I'm just saying that it would be hard for be in that position and take at all seriously what any one of "the users" thinks or wants, or even a group of them. That is wrong though. That is your position, to support the will of the community to build a good place to be. Not to lecture the community on what it should be, with whether that is good or bad as irrelevant or subordinate to "the rules."

              I don't know, man. I don't really know what the answer is, and I don't really like the thankless and difficult position that mods on busy communities get put into. But this mindset is wrong.

              • The mods set and enforce the rules of the community, if someone isn't breaking the rules, they can be as obnoxious and hated as they can stand.

                We looked at them, repeatedly, and were actively waiting for them to cross that line, when they did, we took action.

                This happens on the back end a lot, there are a couple of other accounts (which shall remain nameless) under discussion now.

                In those two cases, they aren't in my communities so I approach it as "not my circus, not my clowns", but provided an opinion. I think they're ban worthy, but it's ultimately up to the mods of those communities and admins to make that call.

            • Yeah you've said that a lot but I know what I saw. Dozens minimum were routinely saying things like "this troll hasn't been banned yet? Wtf?! They are a super obvious troll"

              Any discussion that discounted that was not a good one . If you got made the fall guy, that sucks but from the user perspective, you defended an obvious troll.

              • We don't moderate based on fee fees. We moderate on rule breaking behavior. UM was right on the line, until he wasn't.

                But this is besides the point here of removing posts from shitty sources, which Monk also was not doing.

                • You can ignore the point about everyone thinking they are a troll, which breaks rules, but it stands.

                  • What "everyone thinks" doesn't enter into it without evidence. The majority of voters thought Trump would make a fine President in the last election. In a lot of cases "most people" are wrong.

                    • Funny you should mention that. Disinformation campaigns disseminated by trolls from around the world are partially responsible for that.

                      "What everyone thinks" certainly should matter. If everyone is saying it's a troll, it's probably been clear for a while that it's a troll. The evidence was overwhelming. Pretending it was absent proves my point.

      • Off topic. I had nothing to do with OP's situation and I'm not the mod in question. (Also, I was never shielded)

82 comments