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 🤦

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 hours ago

    You’re putting a lot of effort into defending a shitty source.

    Nope. I’m defending the ARTICLE, which has nothing to do with the more reasonable reasons to distrust Mintpress

    To be clear, I DON’T CARE who wrote the article.

    You REALLY should. Sometimes great journalists don’t have the luxury of being picky about who publishes their work.

    The post is about the article and, other than not fawning over Israel, the article doesn’t exemplify any of the “offenses” MBFC accuses it of.

    Shitty sources don’t deserve the traffic.

    Great articles do. If anything, limiting access to the good things an otherwise questionable publisher posts reduces their incentive to publish more of that kind and less clickbaity mis/disinformation.

    It could be a nobel prize winner, if it’s on a questionable source, it’s getting removed

    That’s 100% grade A horseshit and against the REASON to have the rule in the first place. It would behoove you to reconsider such an arbitrarily rigid approach.

    Put on your big boy pants and find a better source.

    Take off your scolding cap and stop censoring good articles for arbitrary reasons.

    Edit If you CAN’T find a better source on the same story, it’s an opportunity to step back ask ask why…

    If it had been an opinion piece or breaking news making questionable claims, sure. This is neither of that and well-sourced, though, so would be more akin to dismissing a movie for being an exclusive of a streaming service you don’t like.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Shitty sources get removed, full stop.

      The author doesn’t enter into it.

      The quality of the article doesn’t enter into it.

      We aren’t giving traffic to them. Or Fox, or Newsmax or Oann, or, etc. etc. etc.

      If you don’t like that, feel free to post elsewhere, we have higher standards.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Shitty sources get removed, full stop.

        The author doesn’t enter into it.

        The quality of the article doesn’t enter into it.

        That’s a bullshit policy and if you didn’t have your “this is how I do it because this is the way I do it” blinders on, you might understand that.

        We aren’t giving traffic to them

        You ARE aware that a lot of publishers, ESPECIALLY ones that don’t worry enough about quality and reliability, look at number of impressions when deciding what kind of things to post more of, right?

        By keeping people away from something GOOD they post, you’re giving Mint a perverse incentive to post less quality journalism about Gaza and more of the kinds that IS bullshit but gets more clicks.

        If you don’t like that, feel free to post elsewhere,

        I will.

        we I have higher arbitrary and counterproductive standards.

        Fixed it for you.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          10 hours ago

          No, because if we allow one source that’s questionable, then the next time this comes up it will be “But, but, you allowed this other bullshit source, why not miiiiiiiine??!???” We aren’t opening that door.

          We went over this with the legit journalist posting from Substack. Don’t care, Substack isn’t a source.

          Read what other people are telling you in this very thread, YDI.

          • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            No, because if we allow one source that’s questionable, then the next time this comes up it will be “But, but, you allowed this other bullshit source, why not miiiiiiiine??!???” We aren’t opening that door.

            We all already knew youre a dog shit mod, Jordy, but if you’re really too stupid to know how to respond to that then you should definitely be stripped of any responsibility IRL and digitally

            • jordanlund@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              It’s not a slippery slope when he’s a living example of what I’m talking about.

              “Buuuut my bullshit source is special! I’m different!”

              No it isn’t, and no you aren’t. I swear, we need an alternate community to PTB - call it WLB - Whiny Little Bitches.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 hours ago

            No, because if we allow one source that’s questionable, then the next time this comes up it will be “But, but, you allowed this other bullshit source, why not miiiiiiiine??!???” We aren’t opening that door.

            Holy slippery slope fallacy, Batman! 🙄

            Read what other people are telling you in this very thread, YDI.

            I have, and most either agree with me or disagree based on the irrelevant point you keep harping on.

            Rigidly dogmatic mods such as yourself is the reason why most people from other instances avoid .world when possible.