99
Jordan Lund at it again (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

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 🤦

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

Oh i just realized that stupid bias check bot has been gone for a while. Everyone hated it so i guess it was killed or blocked at some point? Anyone know the story?

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 1 day ago

Personally I haven't seen it for ages because I blocked it, but if I was to guess, the mods finally relented to the overwhelming majority? 🤷

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 1 day ago

They held a vote after insisting for ages that it was a ‘small minority’ of users that had a problem with it. It wasn’t 90/10, but it wasn’t 50/50 either.

Oh, and they only held the vote after jordanlund claimed he would get demodded by the admins if he removed the bot. And when someone pinged an admin they said they had no idea how he got that impression, lol.

[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 15 points 1 day ago

Also, a big part of their argument was that it was the only option, nothing else would do that had an API endpoint and had affordable terms of use. I offered to provide them an API endpoint to Wikipedia's sources list (which is precisely the same thing as MBFC, just... accurate and detailed) in exactly the same format, and they said no no that won't do. I wrote code to actually fetch and parse Wikipedia's list so they could make the bot follow actually-accurate source rankings with additional details and everything. Rooki silently received the message, then there was a long delay, then a little "Wikipedia" line started showing up way down below the awful MBFC rankings that were still front and center.

[-] Heyting@lemmy.ml 0 points 22 hours ago

Wikipedia’s source list is very US biased as wel. They list CIA front Radio Free Asia as trusted source.

[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Yeah Jordanlund has a history of lying about why he does certain things. The fact that he said that when you can just simply ask the admins if that's true or not, is enough for me to never trust him.

The dude has recently been saying how much he is against what's happening in Gaza, but people brought up screenshots of him saying he was a fan of sending more bombs to Israel, and removing posts highlighting the increase in weapons being sent to Israel in the last 4 years.

The dude would have to get his neighbors to call the dogs home because they wouldn't believe him.

[-] Diva@lemmy.ml 6 points 13 hours ago

liberals, against every war but the war that's happening right now

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 6 points 1 day ago

Are you serious? Because I really wanted to give Jordan the benefit of doubt mod decisions were flawed, but a though job on his part. ;(

Edit: NVM jordanlund has removed a thread by @miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar miss_demeanour in politics - He voted for Trump. Now his wife sits in an ICE detention center.

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 day ago

Took me a bit to find it; it was in a direct reply to an admin rather than pinging them. They also give a link to the thread where JL claims the admins would sack him if he got rid of the bot.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 7 points 1 day ago

Thanks so much. I had to "context" a few times but finally found it: https://lemmy.world/comment/12825768

Also thanking @https://kbin.earth/u/@PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat for standing up in that thread.

[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

That whole conversation is so weird. I went back and reread big sections of it, and it's just... the conversation is off. Jordan says he can't remove the bot, because the admins won't allow it. Rooki says that's definitely not true, so people ask Jordan about it... and he's just silent. Not "oh I must have misunderstood" or anything else, just pretending that if he doesn't say anything, no one will notice that someone asked him a question, and everyone will move on. And then there's Rooki accepting the code for scanning Wikipedia's sources... but totally missing the point that the MBFC sources are awful, and the WP reliable sources list is actually quite good, and deciding that MBFC and Ground News are what needs to be positioned front and center. Also seeming totally uninterested in the idea of improving the quality of the ratings in response to the clear consensus of the community with citations.

I checked the last of the stuff that MBFC bot posted, 4 months ago, and the little line where the Wikipedia rating had previously featured had been replaced to a link to the WP article about the source, missing the whole point of categorizing sources cleanly into bullshit/not bullshit or the point that certain sources (Newsweek) had clearly slid into unreliability over time, but were still allowed on the lemmy.world subs for some reason.

It's just so strange. Someone had a conspiracy theory that one of the admins had an unannounced sponsorship deal with Ground News, and that was the whole reason behind the entire thing to drop a link to Ground News while misdirecting everyone into getting mad at MBFC or something. I have no idea. It was just weird.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 1 day ago

I don't envy the unpaid mod job, especially mods who work hard to be fair and honest. I get your disdain and distrust of mintpress too and I hope you'll reconsider. They do source their articles very well, because they know their audience and we're foolable, but not always.

[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 4 points 23 hours ago

disdain and distrust

They do source their articles very well

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/senatedocs/2/

Look at page 98, they literally have an org chart of Russian disinformation campaigns within this one particular network that they analyzed, and where Mint Press fits into it.

I also sent some examples of open propaganda articles elsewhere in these comments. They don't source their stuff "very well," by definition, since they are posting open propaganda and disguising the fact that it's sourced indirectly from Russian intelligence, but that's not even the point. It has nothing to do with "disdain," although I applaud your consistent efforts to remove the discussion from a factual domain and into an emotional one through the use of charged words (or into a domain where "sourcing of articles" is the issue.)

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 23 hours ago

Emotional? Lol Phillip. Not everything Russia says is a lie, not everything they say is the truth. I'm saying mintpress articles, even if sources from Russia, cite verifiable sources. Who's emotional?

Fwiw, I also lend credence to legacy media, although I often can't easily verify it. I've been wrong about a LOT of stuff and that's part of being human. I even know sometimes I can't believe my lying eyes. And sometimes, i can because they're not lying. It's not like nyt who's openly admitted they lie when the feds ask them to, then keep lying, even when the feds_don't_ all them. And I still give them credence sometimes too.

[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 2 points 23 hours ago
[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 23 hours ago

I have no idea what this reply is to, and I'm not going to argue further with you. I bid you peace.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Removed as a duplicate, the same link was submitted 1 hour before and had more comments.

https://lemm.ee/post/58586482

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 4 points 1 day ago
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

No worries. I think a lot of the problem is that people don't know how moderation works.

We don't hang out in the group waiting to pounce on posts looking to fuck with people. Well, I shouldn't say "we", I don't do that. :)

There's a queue of reports and it looks like this:

So when I look at reports, it's a matter of "is this true?"

Going to the politics community, I searched for "ICE detention" and sorted by "New". Boom, there it was #1 and #2, two posts with the same thumbnail, one 6 hours old, one 7 hours old.

Same thumbnail doesn't necessarily mean anything, same link? Yeah, same link.

Here's where it gets tricky:

Which one do you remove? The knee jerk is "Well, duh, the newer one." But in this case, the newer one has more upvotes for some reason.

At that point, I looked at the comments, the newer one had more upvotes, but fewer comments. One of them needs to go, I picked that one. If it had had more upvotes AND more comments, I'd have kept it with a note on the other as "removed for duplicate and lower community engagement."

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 23 hours ago

Thanks for a detailed and well-explained reply. I understand. A lot of the problem seems that being questionable often enough that everything is sus. It can be corrected with diligence and determination on the moderators' parts. Which is simple, but not necessarily easy.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 23 hours ago

It's easier when there's not a lot in the queue. I've had times where I wake up in the morning and there are 20+ or 30+ unresolved reports and I'm like "Oh, what fresh hell is this?"

Generally it's either:

  1. A troll being reported over and over, resolve it once and it resolves all of them.

or 2) Two people getting into an internet slap fight, arguing back and forth and reporting all the other persons comments.

At that point, I go up the chain, find the last rational comment one of them made, keep that, nuke the rest and ban them both for 24 hours. Too much of modding is like parenting siblings. "I don't CARE who started it, you're BOTH grounded."

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 4 points 23 hours ago

I understand that too. It's a thankless job, not to mention unpaid. I try to give everyone benefit of the doubt, even if I'm not personally fond of them. I try to merit individual comments, rather than memorable comment history. There are exceptions, but they have to work extra hard to get there, or is a moment of human fallibility. At any rate, thanks for detailed replies.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world -3 points 23 hours ago

And if someone wants to be RUDE about it, THAT'S when I put on the PTB hat and go "Fuck you, I don't have to explain shit!" ;)

[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 day ago

There was a public vote on whether to eliminate it or not from the .world news and politics communities, and the vote to remove won, thankfully!

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee -1 points 1 day ago

Yeah people kept complaining so eventually they just quietly turned it off

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 2 points 1 day ago

That thing was utter trash

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago

It wasn't quiet, we put it up to a vote.

[-] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 12 hours ago

Can we put whether you continue wasting electrons by posting on Lemmy up to a vote?

this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
99 points (83.7% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

749 readers
238 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.


Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules


Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS