Lemmy.World's !News sides with Mark Zuckerberg in Censoring Palestinians

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?
- 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.
  
  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.
  
  I'm a socialist. I do not pretend, nor have I ever pretended to be a liberal.
- 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.
- Maybe read the article and make those determinations for yourself?
  I can't for the life of me understand why this particular article is so threatening to LW !news mods. It provides valuable insight into how Facebook's community guidelines are experienced by journalists outside of the political mainstream and has useful lessons for why and how we might do things differently in the Fediverse.
  
  It’s not threatening anyone… I don’t believe I’ve seen anywhere that the mods say or imply that. Also before anyone complain about singling people out, no, if I share anything from a non-reputable source, it’s going to get deleted, regardless of the subject. It’s about the quality of the source; the objective is to create a community sharing good trustworthy sources to improve the overall quality of content appearing on the community.
  Again, you’ve been invited by the mods to repost from a more reputable source. If there aren’t any, then perhaps it is not !news worthy.

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.
- It's true they're getting very hard to find these days. I was very disappointed that even NBC the other day, reporting on the House investigation into Biden, had the gall to simply say that "the White House has not yet had a chance to comment".
  There's a small handful of good ones still, though, depending on the niche you're looking for. ProPublica is still an example of responsible journalism for instance.
  
  Check the farm... I think that's where all of them went to.
- Where besides Dave's assessment are you sourcing your information? Isn't it one-sided to only listen to Dave M. Van Zandt's opinion without doing additional investigation?
  
  The Cradle is trash though. And a defender of the Russian genocide of Ukraine.
  
  You do have a valid point. When I encounter something they are reporting that interests me, it would behove me to do further checking. There are other fact checking and news comparing services, and wikipedia usually has some good background information.
  Additionally, I could check an article myself to make sure they actually do include an IDF statement in addition to any pro-Palestinian sources' statements.

Looks more like you posted a garbage source?
edit - for example. Do you consider Fox News to report a balanced view? Or GBNews? Zerohedge?
- 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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
- Notice how TheCradle never failed a fact check? All those sources you listed have failed fact checks. That's the difference.
- That's besides the point. Censorships on Lemmy is rampant and borderline oppressive. Posting an inoffensive news article in a forum that automatically allows the community to evaluate a 3rd party's criticism(s) of that agencies credibility should be more than sufficient.
  These non-experts declaring themselves the arbiters of truth is an embarrassment for the platform and need to be dealt with before it gets abandoned.
  I even agree that Cradle is shit, but to end any possibility of discussion, in flagrant opposition to Lemmy's ENTIRE PURPOSE just creates empty echo chambers
  
  Censorships on Lemmy is rampant and borderline oppressive.
  citation needed
  These non-experts declaring themselves the arbiters of truth is an embarrassment for the platform and need to be dealt with before it gets abandoned.
  Luckily then they're not the "arbiters of truth" for the platform, eh? Just for the instance they own themselves. You are free to disagree with them, and not go to their garden parties any more. Doesn't change that it's their garden, and their party.
  in flagrant opposition to Lemmy’s ENTIRE PURPOSE
  Hrm... no. I tried, and nothing about the Lemmy site says that instance owners aren't free to moderate their sites as they see fit. In fact that they can is cited as a benefit of the system, since everyone is also free to run their own instance.
  (edit)
  Look, I don't even disagree, but no need to make shit up to call admins out for. The subject matter of the topic is enough to call them out for if you're so inclined.

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

"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
- 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.
  
  Ask a socialist what's wrong with Lemmy.world, they'll give you a myriad of issues. Ask a capitalist what's wrong with Lemmy.ml, they'll describe Lemmy.world.

Maybe more fit for !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com or !fedidrama@lemmy.ca rather than here?
- If you'd like to see it discussed elsewhere, you're welcome to cross-post it.
  This is part of culture clash between old social media culture and Fediverse norms. If moderators choose to censor this discussion as well, it's only going to get bigger.
  
  The thing about the fediverse is: it doesn't have to be uniform in how the admins and moderators behave, because federation is an elective process. Don't like an admin or mod, go somewhere else. Just don't be surprised when that somewhere else gets defederated.

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".

Failed fact checks: none in the last five years
"Left biased."
Exactly.
- Wait, are you implying that left-leaning sites are less likely to publish misinformation or that MBFC unfairly favors left-leaning sources? I'm confused.
  
  Even nature is by nature left-biased, so if you lean left you are far less likely to get your facts wrong anyway.
  I don't make the rules. It's other people who fail at life.
  
  Reality has a liberal bias.

- the entire concept of “fact checkers” is stupid
  I get why partisan fact-checking can be problematic but the rest isn't making sense to me. I feel like you're saying we shouldn't bother with fact-checking because the only thing you need to go on is your gut feeling. Many things are demonstrably false and no amount of bias can change that. Besides, fact-checkers have a reputation to uphold.
- In this particular case, it adds to the problem that naturally if you ask one side of a dispute whether they think it's fair or not, they might be sliiiiiiightly biased....
- I disagree, and that's part of the reason I'm so strongly opposed to Lemmy.World's use of Dave Van Zandt's site in their bot. Fact-checking is an essential tool in fighting the waves of fake news polluting the public discourse. But if that fact-checking is partisan, then it only acerbates the problem of people divided on the basics of a shared reality.
  This is why a consortium of fact-checking institutions have joined together to form the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), and laid out a code of principles. You can find a list of signatories as well as vetted organizations on their website. You can read more about those principles here.
  MBFC is not a signatory to the IFCN code of principles. As a partisan organization, it violates the standards that journalists have recognized as essential to restoring trust in the veracity of the news. Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all. Just like how the proliferation of fake news undermines the authority of journalism, the growing popularity of a fact-checking site by a political hack like Dave M. Van Zandt undermines the authority of non-partisan fact-checking institutions in the public consciousness.

Lemmy.world news and politics subs are over ran by the same brain dead mods from reddit who are either shiti journalists or other "political/narrative" operatives.
Just block and stop engaging... Don't feed these parasites.

ITT: liberals finally choosing to discard their last tether to reality because it doesn’t support their nihilist fascism-supporting warped world view