210
New Sidebar Rule: (lemmy.world)
submitted 10 months ago by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

We've had to create a new sidebar rule, we won't be enacting it retroactively because that just doesn't seem fair, but going forward:

  • Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] HowRu68@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Is this about that account called "nonaturalgas" or something? Anyway somehow that one always felt off . So good job.

Correction: it's name was naturalgasbad and he was also banned. Some other poster stated he posted several pro China articles a day.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

No, they only posted twice that I'm aware of.

This one isn't about the quality of the links, the links themselves appear to be fine, it's just the sheer volume.

To give you some idea, I moderate some smaller communities and I personally feel like I'm dominating the conversation if I post more than 3 links in a day...

Roll over to World News and I see 19... 🙄

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago

Naturalgas posts about 5-10 pro-China pieces a day.

Honestly I feel like Nekandro is just their alt account , the types of posts felt too similar.

[-] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

They definitely do seem to push certain agendas based on the topics. I already keep an eye on him too, especially since he's on Lemmy.ml which is just Lemmygrad in disguise.

[-] HowRu68@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Naturalgas posts about 5-10 pro-China pieces a day.

Naturalgasbad was the one I meant earlier. I saw he was banned yesterday, that's why I checked whether this was about him.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

He was banned for an entirely different reason.

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago

They told me they were banned because they kept citing the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart and the mods here preferred the Media Bias Fact Check ratings.

Please don't assume their gender. This is basic etiquette.

[-] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Please don't assume their level of offence at being presumed to be a he. This is basic etiquette.

It's just a way for you to try to feel morally superior and direct the attention towards you

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago

They told me what they preferred, but you are right that I assumed they would be offended. My bad.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They were banned because after they were banned for abusing the report feature, they continued arguing with me through a series of PMs when they were told to stop arguing with a mod, repeatedly.

The ban increased from 3 days for abusing reports, to 7 days for arguing, then 30 for not stopping, then finally a permaban.

They were warned and given every opportunity to stop.

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

They're telling me they were reporting articles which didn't match the community's policy on reliability according to MBFC credibility crating and that the moderator in question refused to respond constructively.

Edit: I don't have the DMs from either side, which might help tell the story lol

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

They were reporting sites like the Washington Post which is a newspaper of record with a high credibility rating.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/

When the links they posted which were removed were from the South China Morning Post.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/south-china-morning-post/

Basically they wanted to post Chinese propaganda and got butthurt that they weren't allowed to.

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

SCMP is considered pretty reliable by most Western media outlets. It's still used as a source for Reuters news wires and Associated Press articles. It's still banned in mainland China for being too "edgy" or whatever, and the Hong Kong government still bars them from many events for "security reasons." It's still used by the Canadian Armed Forces College in their news feed SOMNIA. It's used by Bloomberg, which many financial folks over on State Street use as a source to trade billions of dollars on.

Their op-eds are more, well, opinionated and editorialized than in the past, but anybody submitting op-eds to a news community needs to reconsider doing so in the first place. If you evaluated WaPo or the NYT solely off of their op-eds, you'd think you were reading a rag like the Daily Mail.

If Reuters, Associated Press, Bloomberg, and the Canadian Armed Forces rely on SCMP, what makes the moderators of this community think they know better?

Edit: FWIW, Reuters also uses WaPo as a source.

this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
210 points (88.0% liked)

World News

38987 readers
1528 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that 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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS