A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
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.
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.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
My post got removed despite it being from a reliable source (Ukrayinska Pravda- Media Bias/ Fact check.)
I am not looking to participate in a community where mods remove posts based on their feelings about the source, there needs to be a proof to the mod claim.
Why did my post got removed in this case?
How is the source unreliable, what is the mod proof for that?
I do realize, feel free to read the actual article here:
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/24/7476472/
"Source: General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on Facebook"
The Source isn't Pravda, the source is a Facebook post. Yes, I removed it, no, I'm not apologizing for it.
You’re being overtly combative when I was merely asking for a clarification on your understanding to ensure there wasn’t a miscommunication.
As I stated in another comment, the source isn’t just “a Facebook post” it’s from the verified and official account of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine https://www.facebook.com/share/p/3n2sU1rSuebWeFp4/?mibextid=WC7FNe
As a mod, is it really your job to second guess sources cited within articles from reputable news sources? Would you have removed the article if it came from the New York Times?
I greatly respect the amount of work you mods have to do, and understand that it can be incredibly difficult - but from the outside it looks like you saw “Pravda”, assumed it was the Russian Pravda, and deleted the post based on that. I’m not saying that’s what happened, but that’s easily an interpretation someone could arrive at looking from the outside.
When someone reports a comment and the entire post looks fishy? Yes, that's exactly what moderators do and we do it literally every day.
IDK why you find the post fishy. These numbers are posted every day on [email protected].
The top sub on lemmy to follow the Ukraine war.
That’s a strawman. We’re not talking about comments. We’re talking about why you removed a post from a reputable source. You’ve said because it was 1) from Pravda (apparently not realizing all Pravda’s are not the same); and 2) because the article used a FB post as a source.
Just to do a baseline reset here - can we agree that the news article linked to was from a news organization that is generally regarded as reliable, including by the MBFC source your own bot uses? And can we agree that the Facebook post linked to was from the official and verified account of the Ukrainian forces? And that it matches both their website data and other verified social media posts?
If you follow the link to the facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid02TWTFhaFZBH1v5EJAzJ5fRTM3bBFk3aJ2fFJjneC54VaKM3X9GajtJR9rjQ6pzXysl
These are very obviously the official numbers, on the official general staff of Ukraine facebook page.
If you compare the numbers to the Ministry of defense, you can see they are the same:
https://www.mil.gov.ua/en/news/2024/09/24/the-estimated-combat-losses-of-russians-over-the-last-day-1400-persons-61-artillery-systems-3-anti-aircraft-systems/
You made decision a based on a misunderstanding, which is fair enough, we all make mistakes.
But please accept when you are given the correct info, and adjust accordingly. IDK maybe you are having a bad day.
This is not up to your normal quality of moderation.
Also, Newsweek instead linked a Twitter post of the Ukrainian Forces https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-war-russian-troop-losses-peak-levels-1958439
And MSN didn’t even bother linking to a source at all. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russia-s-losses-in-ukraine-as-of-september-24-1-400-troops-and-61-artillery-systems/ar-AA1r6qtq
All told, it would seem like the source linked to in the post was the most authoritative available.
Social media is one of the central ways news organizations get information and has been for over a decade. I mean, that's one of the central reasons Musk's Twitter fuckups have been such a big deal! Removing a post for that is really stupid
Yeah, especially since they linked to the post in the article and you could see it was a legit verified account belonging to the Ukrainian General Forces. They did exactly what any good journalist should do.
My biggest problem is the mod is now seemingly reviewing news article sources personally. If an article’s source is judged to be generally very reliable by their own MBFC bot’s source, then a post linking to that source shouldn’t be removed citing that sources unreliability.
Honestly, I still think he saw “Pravda” and thought it was the state-run Russian Pravda and made his decision off that - and has been rationalizing all that ever since rather than admit a mistake. Look at what he commented on the deleted post:
I dunno. Plenty of pro-Russian posters on Lemmy, and in this very thread. It is funny to see people arguing that Ukrainian sources should be removed since they can't give an unbiased picture of Russian casualties, though--I'm sure Russian sources are totally unbiased, lol!