this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
28 points (57.0% liked)

Fediverse

28733 readers
200 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net 79 points 4 months ago (4 children)

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?

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 43 points 4 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 35 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You can tell from the post title. There's a collection of little propagandists that do nothing other than post disinformation, immediately lash out at any slightly differing opinions, and then go whining in other communities if any mod takes any action about it.

[–] macgyver@federation.red 5 points 4 months ago

Good ole Yogthos

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 53 points 4 months ago (18 children)

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.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 49 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (8 children)

Looks more like you posted a garbage source?

edit - for example. Do you consider Fox News to report a balanced view? Or GBNews? Zerohedge?

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 55 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 1 points 4 months ago

Well, there's a whole horde of people seeking to discredit Wikipedia as well, whining as loud as they can about its bias in one direction or another.

It's information warfare, and it's pretty exhausting. And it's impossible to tell who has ulterior motives and who's just a moron. Creds to the Lemmy.world crowd for putting up with it at all.

Of course this media fact checking site is not perfect. But if your conspiracy revolves around every single well-reputed news source in the world refusing to communicate the truth... Maybe check yourself.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 41 points 4 months ago

A poorly sourced article from @jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world ?? No way, I'm shocked!

[–] gigachad@sh.itjust.works 39 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"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

[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Blaze@sopuli.xyz 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

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".

load more comments
view more: next ›