New Sidebar Rule:
New Sidebar Rule:
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're viewing a single thread.
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.
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... 🙄
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.
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.
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.
He was banned for an entirely different reason.
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.
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
They told me what they preferred, but you are right that I assumed they would be offended. My bad.
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.
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
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.
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?
Now you have to post only articles that mods like?
And don't you dare question them!
Because a) it was reported as a suspicious source and b) upon examination was found to be "Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing".
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/south-china-morning-post/
That is not an issue other sites that we do allow have. The decision has been made. It's not up for debate.
When the links were removed, the user was not banned and simply told to choose better sources. They went on a rampage reporting posts from known reliable sources resulting in a 3 day ban from a separate mod for abusing the report feature.
All of this was explained to the banned user who kept arguing and arguing in PMs and was told to stop, which resulted in increasing their bans over and over as they persisted until they were finally permanently banned.
In the end, their behavior in PMs showed the banning was appropriate. You don't get anywhere arguing with mods.
For the record, naturalgasbad sent me their exchange with the moderator, which stemmed from the moderator in question removing SCMP articles due to "SCMP not meeting reliability guidelines."
@moderator:
Al Jazeera is reliable when they aren’t talking about things that involve Qatar, that seems to be their specific blind spot.
Kyiv Post and the Telegraph I haven’t specifically looked at, if they get reported I’ll check them out.
@naturalgasbad:
Literally by the standards on SCMP you quoted, they’re unreliable.
@moderator:
SCMP: Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing.
Al Jazeera: Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar.
You: “bUt ThEyR’e ThE sAmE!!!”
Poor sourcing is poor sourcing. You picked a shitty news agency. Try to do better next time.
(for reference, the Daily Telegraph is also "mixed due to poor sourcing" and Kyiv Post is "mixed due to failed fact checks")
@naturalgasbad:
MBFC claims SCMP has poor sourcing based on the suggestion that they’re misrepresenting the US import ban on China (the one “failed fact check” according to them). That’s how MBFC gives the commentary on their ratings. It’s based on a sample-size of one. There’s no long-term commentary provided by MBFC because their entire ratings system and commentary is based on sampling a small number of articles (we don’t know which ones) and going off of what goes wrong within that sample.
It’s also reflecting the problem of a US-based bias assessment website: it suggests that ideas within the US Overton window are “correct” will those shared by the Global South are “less correct.”
From what I can tell, some of the problem is what they assume the basic level of skill is for readers. A few weeks ago, I posted a story about SCMP reporting on a research study published in Science. Members of this community failed to find it, despite being told the subject, authors, where it was published, and when it was published. That’s not poor sourcing, but poor research ability on behalf of the readers.
@moderator:
Continuing to argue with a mod who has made their decision will not win you any favors. Keep it up and you’ll get a ban on top of having your shitty links removed, oh, wait, you’ve already been banned for abusing the report feature. I can easily extend that.
@naturalgasbad
But again, MBFC’s entire commentary on SCMP’s issues is reliant on this single sentence from a single article. It’s inherently because MBFC relies on a small sample set of each site to determine a rating because they lack the manpower and the educational foundation to provide comprehensive analysis of a news source. Either way, that article was an editorial, not a news report. (In any cases, SCMP is commenting on Chinese reports written in Chinese, which American readers struggle to find because they don’t speak Chinese).
[The [U.S. import ban] has been taken without evidence being provided.]
Unlike SCMP’s reporting, Polygraph is unable to source the article this claim can be found in. From the articles I can find that, SCMP is comnenting based on this statement:
[The ban creates a “rebuttable presumption” that any Xinjiang goods were tainted by the use of forced labour – a “guilty until proven innocent” principle that effectively inverts US customs laws related to forced labour]
In fact, Ad Fontes’ media bias chart considers SCMP to be “reliable” (reliability score of 41.56 on a 0-64 scale) and “centrist” (bias score of -3.3 on a scale of -42 - 42). This is on par with Al Jazeera (41.65, -6.71) and New York Times (41.92, -7.96) and better than Washington Post (38.08, -8.69). (Ad Fontes also has issues, but your obsession with MBFC in particular is a little odd).
@moderator:
7 day ban. Want to go for 30?
@naturalgasbad:
I cited Ad Fontes. Feel free to criticize their methodology.
@moderator:
30 days. Keep going.
@naturalgasbad:
So… Do you not like Ad Fontes’ methodology, then?
@moderator:
And permaban. Good luck on your next account.
Children, please stop fighting.
Permanently Deleted