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?
Nah, it won't happen because that user is infamous for posting disinformation on this site. He pretends to be a liberal doing this for the benefit of the Lemmiverse, however that logic works out.
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.
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.
For what it's worth, English Wikipedia editors reached a consensus to deprecate (ban) it for unrealiability last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_424#RFC:_The_Cradle
The following notes are present:
The Cradle is an online magazine focusing on West Asia/Middle East-related topics. It was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to a history of publishing conspiracy theories and wide referencing of other deprecated sources while doing so. Editors consider The Cradle to have a poor reputation for fact-checking.
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.
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.
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.
A poorly sourced article from @jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world ?? No way, I'm shocked!
"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.
The thing about the fediverse is: it doesn't have to be uniform in how the admins and moderators behave, because federation is an elective process. Don't like an admin or mod, go somewhere else. Just don't be surprised when that somewhere else gets defederated.
Failed fact checks: none in the last five years
"Left biased."
Exactly.
Wait, are you implying that left-leaning sites are less likely to publish misinformation or that MBFC unfairly favors left-leaning sources? I'm confused.
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.
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".
ITT: liberals finally choosing to discard their last tether to reality because it doesn’t support their nihilist fascism-supporting warped world view
