@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.
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?
Yup, certainly fits. Next to the rules.
“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).
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.
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
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.
For sure, and given that it is a politics com and not just a news I think such a post does belong there and clearly the members agree. Im going to lean on power trip.
I’d say if anything. If you want a community that only allows news articles from trusted sources.
What does a trusted news outlet even mean. For many people fox news is trustworthy although it lies all the time
Agreed, it just means they can censor dissent and remove discourse on the community. But atleast they would be open about it.
Also, there are plenty of news sources that I trust which take donations and are non-profits so to flat out say this is not a news article because it’s not from a news corp is in my honest opinion, fascism.
It’s not, at least according to the sidebar.
No mention of news.
Maybe he should rensme the community to politicalnews
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.
I thought news was supposed to be objective? Now I am only allowed to share things with people if someone else inserts their opinion into it?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to just share the source of the thing that people are going to form opinions about? Especially when written as a actual article as defined by Merriam-Webster?
To me, this is thought policing and narrative control.
Yeah news is supposed to be objective and you were basically posting an opinion piece. Its a silly rule that every news thread has to be laundered through some “objective journalist institution” instead of just posting direct sources.
Jordan was definitely thought policing you though. He made it obvious when he argued against it while also banning it.
Really no news is ever objective. From your own posts about section certainly isn’t here to be objective. To be clear it is a bias I agree with.
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.
IMO, he will probably get out by impeachment after the US mid terms.
That said, yes, they need some avenue for opinions, but it’s not news.
deleted by creator