We should all be boycotting politics@lemmy.world

@jordanlund@lemmy.world just removed my post from !politics@lemmy.world because the linked article wasn't a "news" source.

The sidebar makes no mention of accepted news sources. And honestly, fuck that fascist nonsense. How the fuck can it be justified to remove posts from articles made by fucking non-profits?

I guess @jordanlund@lemmy.world is also saying that since they disagree with the premise of the article, it should be removed.

People need to be aware that !politics@lemmy.world should be avoided.

This is why I also posted the same thing to !usa@midwest.social

Trump is openly committing treason. He must be impeached and removed from office.
https://midwest.social/post/36857540

47 comments

I dunno I'm kinda with them on this one.
It's not a news article and while it's not as clear as it could be, based on how many non-articles get posted then removed, it's a community for politics news articles only. There's other politics focused communities that allow non-news article posts.
For what it's worth, I agree with the premise, but I also think the impeachment process clearly isn't useful since he's already been impeached twice.
- There's absolutely zero requirement for posts to be news in the sidebar, let alone a definition of what they consider "valid" news sources. In fact, everything there directly supports posts like this.
  First line of the sidebar?
  Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
  Yup, certainly fits. Next to the rules.
  Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
  "Article" is not a word solely for newsprint or journalism. If that's their intent, they need to say so and explicitly define what qualifies as "news" (problematic on its own, but for another discussion).
  Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  Aside from the nebulous and subjective requirement for "quality", nothing here specifies "news only" either or disqualifies the OP post.
  The rest of the rules just cover behavior and general tos. So, if anything, an original article discussing US politics in the "discuss US politics" community should be welcomed by any mod acting in good faith.
  
  sidebar?
  Look at this bullshit on the sidebar.
  [ 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.]
  This means: JL can and frequently does totally ignore his own rules and censors and bans people without any justification. Because you have an opinion that he does not like or is slightly to the right or left of his opinions or he is just too ignorant to understand what you are saying.
  That means there are tons of unwritten rules on stuff he mods. It means he is just as bad if not worse than the worst mods on reddit are. There is no reason for anyone to post to anything this guy mods.
  
  Well everyone knows Jordan Lund doesn't act in good faith, so you shouldn't go on !politics@lemmy.world expecting good faith moderation. If you want clear rules and fair leadership, make your own community.
  /s
- it's a community for politics news articles only.
  It's not, at least according to the sidebar.
  Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  No mention of news.
- I also agree that impeachment wouldn't solve anything. It's not the point.
  Please enlighten me on what is a news source
  
  For 2. it would be a piece of journalism not a call to action. "Group X calls to impeach trump" is news. Posting group x's call to impeach directly is not. The (alleged) lack of the authors opinion is what matters.
  Its a very subtle and pedantic difference IMO. FWIW Jordan has even more arbitrary definitions of what is news and what is a blog.
- No system functions as intended when half of the people running it are acting in malice.
- both time its performative, they want to impeach to show them to be strong in the eyes of the voters, knowing agreed beforehand the senate wont convict, which was most likely instigated by MITCH mcconnel anyways.
- Maybe he should rensme the community to politicalnews
- Perhaps we need a tag for think tanks or opinion column articles? I can see why people think they are valuable to discourse tho i I personally don't like them (particularly when they pretend to be news or research). Maybe a separate comm?
  
  The post got over 300 upvotes in less than a day, I'd say it's something many people would be interested to see.
  Edit: over 300 upvotes in less than 5 hours judging by the timestamp in the picture.
Basically everything jordanlund moderates is trash. Although this is not the most egregious example.
- He falsely accused me of being "transphobic". Then censored me and when I called him out either banned me sitewide or caused me to be banned when I was closing in on 2000 lemmy submissions. Then I later read how JL went to a trans community and acted like a jerk to the people there. Incredible. I've never posted to a trans community but if I did I would be fully respectful of the people there.
  I returned to reddit for awhile and made a post about it. So because JL didn't want a few people on a lemmy.world submission to read my reply to him, a much larger number of people on reddit have read my reply to him. And on reddit a lot of people don't understand the difference between lemmy and lemmy.world, so this guy has done lots of damage to lemmy's reputation.
  https://www.reddit.com/r/redditalternatives2/comments/1n07owd/banned_from_lemmyworld_sitewide_for_agreeing_with/
It's jordan, power tripping, again, PTB of course.
For one, I agree with you, there is no rule that specifically clarifies that it must be a news article.
Like, if I had just directly posted the tweet where Trump publically declared Charlie Kirk as actually dead... well uh, that literally is news, but because its not from a journalism outlet, it probably wouldn't count... even though I am just faster at breaking that news, and the journalists will have their articles out within an hour or two.
Sometimes, news is 'breaking'.
Sometimes, news can be 'broken' by ... not a news outlet.
This is apparently lost on Jordan, or, he's too lazy or pretentious to bother writing more clear rules.
Anyway, beyond that, this is obviously ambiguous and vague and contentious as to what should and should not count as an article that can be posted in the comm...
... which means that enforcement of this rule is somewhat arbitrary.
So Jordan here then lists all his reasons why he thinks this thing people are organizing and calling for is dumb, and... that basically justifies the 'its not news' rule that is apparently being broken.
So, basically, Jordan censored because he didn't like what you posted, and then tried to wiggle that into some kind of a broken rule.
It is incredible to me that he has not been removed by the .world admins yet.
Personally disagreeing with a concept put forth by a group... doesn't make that group's announcement not news.
Removing something just because you personally don't agree with it... is literally the anti-thesis of free speech, an open conversation.
Finally:
... Did anyone else notice how he is referring to himself with the royal "we"?
... while we understand the sentiment ... [liberal-splaining impeachment proceedings]
Yeah that's right, Jordan is apparently a "we" now.
Petty Tyrant.
EDIT:
I am apparently getting a reply from someone who I've already blocked for being some kind of petulant hypocrite or persistent dumbass, so uh... I don't care what they have to say, whoever they are.
=D
- This is apparently lost on Jordan, or, he’s too lazy or pretentious to bother writing more clear rules.
  yeah strongly disagree.
  I think he prefers the rules being vague so he can shitcan whatever he doesn't like. that's true pettiness.
They said they removed Jordan Lund multiple times recently. Stop giving them oxygen. They don't deserve it.
That being said, this is objectively not from a reliable media source, correct? Whether something is an article or an op-ed is another subject for debate but this is a political mailer, not an article.
- Show me in the rules where it says articles need to be news.
  
  Sadly it's only in jls mind
- No they specifically said they only removed him from the mod community group because reasons.
  And bold to think JL knows the rules of any sub he mods
!politics@piefed.social is a good alternative.
- Is it run by shitlibs?
- Is it? I can't see any posts there. Is it because I'm on Lemmy and not piefed?
  
  It's because no one on your instance has subscribed to it yet, so it's not federated any content from there. Once someone subs, it'll start pulling the content from the host instance.
it's that time of week again, huh?
- Idk i figured admins would have told him to lay low for a bit. Then again also doesn't seem like they care so 🤷
- Don't make fun of our leriods or our lemenstraul cycles!
  
  to be clear, I meant he's in a YPTB thread once every week.
Don’t tell me what to do.
It's always fucking Jordan I tell you.
Jordan again?
He’s not wrong.
- Is a mod thinking the premise of an article is wrong really legitimate grounds for removal? Besides, Trump "must" be removed to prevent further damage. That much is true. It's just also true that he absolutely won't be.
  
  It’s not a news article. Regardless of the rest, it needed to be removed.
Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents.
Your post is not a link to an article.
- What is an article? Is it something like this definition?
  Why can't an argument written by a non-profit be an article?
  If it has to come from a news corporation, which ones? Who gets to decide?
  If the MAGA regime decides to label a news source as "fake" is it no longer trusted? What if the news corp is dissolved but the writers started something else?
  
  There's no sense trying to argue your case like I'm some kind of legal judge. It looked to me like you wrote a sentence of opinion and linked to a petition rather than link to an article. I assumed they meant news article. You didn't. The person who gets to decide is the moderator.

47 comments