YDI: You called @silence7 a shill for phonebanking. As a mod, he has no obligation to take your abuse.

I didn’t care enough to do more than a brief investigation

Apathy and lack of curiosity towards people who think differently from you is a virtue, don’t let anyone else tell you otherwise. Never change, Phil.

You missed the “/s”?

No. I understand your sarcasm. I’m confused by your sincerity.

Why do you think the OP mistook SLRPNK for Democrats?

I didn’t think you were asking sarcastically. But I don’t think you’re serious.

You’re attacking SLRPNK for being covert Republican operatives when you’re simultaneously commenting in another YPTB thread that’s calling us out for being covert Democrats. I should not have to do this much hand-holding with someone who genuinely wants information. The answers are right under your nose, but it benefits your grandstanding victim complex not to see them.

You used to be mozz@mbin.grits.dev, right? Ponder.cat’s stylesheet looks nice. How does Lemmy compare to MBin from an admin perspective?

Ask this guy, I think he can guess at least one of them. Remember to tell him anarchist admins are the real authoritarians because we support our community moderators, and that we’re bad for letting people into our space to use it for political propaganda, because they are making a pretty thin and implausible claim to being on our team.

I don’t need to agree with someone on all points for them to be “on my team” - a diversity of politics, experience, and opinion is a strength, not a weakness. @mambabasa represents themselves, and in so doing elevates anarchism as an ideology that celebrates the lived experiences and politics of diverse sets of people.

@mambabasa and I differ in that he has often taken the line that !anarchism should focus on outreach while I have suggested more action be taken to prevent it from being dominated by non-anarchist voices. His gentle 10-day bans are a compromise between our divergent visions for the space, and a measured response to all of you as a group dog-piling on him in the now locked thread.

SLRPNK is an intentionally both an international instance, as well as an ideologically diverse instance. We give a lot of autonomy to moderators. Despite being administered by anarchists and having a significant membership that identifies as anarchist, we expect our anti-fascist moderators to follow the politics of their conscience rather than toe a particular anarchist line. Solarpunk is an internationalist movement, and should not be dominated by any one country or culture.

These two goals sometimes create tension. A significant portion of our international audience is from the United States, and some SLRPNK moderators have filled their community feeds with Democratic Party propaganda. I guarantee @mambabasa does not want Trump to win, and criticizing the hypocrisy of liberal politicians and the losing proposition of elevating electoral politics above direct action is not an endorsement of fascism.

Mambabasa’s posting history at the time I looked at it started with:

• Kamala Harris = genocide
• Kamala Harris = genocide
• Democrats = party of genocide
• Kamala Harris = genocide
• Democrats = genocide
• Greta Thunberg quote
• “Elect the Democrats” satire
• “Vote Democrat” satire
• “Vote Democrat” satire
• “Vote Democrat” satire
• “Don’t think, just vote” satire
• “Vote Democrat” satire
• “Don’t think, just vote” satire

His meme posts exist in the context of a local feed full of United States election centered news in what is supposed to be a haven for internationalists and anarchists. They’re a reminder that anarchists are not edgy Democrats, and if that idea is offensive, you can unsubscribe and block !anarchism and !notvoting@slrpnk.net. Other people existing who don’t share your politics and have their own spaces should not be so threatening to someone with confidence in their own ideology.

Thank you @db0. I co-mod !anarchism@slrpnk.net and administer on SLRPNK. I also support @mambabasa’s moderation decisions.

This tradition?

Let’s be clear that I am anti-Putin and anti-Kim.

Ad-hominem means “to the man” – that is, instead of attacking the message, one attacks the credibility of the messenger. This also includes when instead of defending the credibility of a message, one defends the credibility of the messenger. Ad-hominem is exactly the purpose of the MBFC bot. Instead of fact-checking the individual article, it tells you if the article is credible or not based on its clearly biased assessment of the article outlet.

You are correct in that ad-hominem is generally a terrible way of judging credibility. I am not making an ad-hominem fallacy. I am responding to an ad-hominem fallacy that has been spammed in every thread in this community.

Groups like MBFC use their position as gatekeepers of the political spectrum to disguise radical ideas as centrist positions, and it’s ironic that !world using such a biased propaganda platform to tell its readers what is credible.

Bias is not the same thing as propaganda, propaganda is not the same thing as misinformation. Articles should be evaluated on how factual they are, and there are plenty of platforms that are doing the hard work of verifying information without putting their political ideology above their credibility. This bot is a mistake.

Before removing the bot, !news mods removed comments critical of the bot, and ignored the overwhelming negative feedback and the consensus that the bot should be removed when they opened the discussion up to the community.

!politics and !world now appear to be willing to change course. The vote to “Kill” – stop their bot from advertising MBFC in all of their posts – appears to be leading in both communities.

If you upvote the Kill comment so that this lead becomes a landslide, you can make it even more embarrassing and difficult for them to claim ‘bots’ or backtrack.

MBFC is claiming CNN is Left-Center, when it is owned by conservative billionaire John Malone. This is an example of MBFC’s intentional distortion of the political spectrum by falsely representing it as dominated by a left-wing bias.

An example of CNN’s actual right-wing bias is when they put an obvious Trump Supporter on their televised panel of ‘undecided voters’. According to Parker Molloy from The New Republic, this isn’t “an isolated case of questionable representation in CNN’s voter panels. In fact, it appears to be part of a troubling pattern stretching back years.” She suggests it could be “a potential willingness to mislead viewers for the sake of compelling television.” - media ownership and their profit motive, and complicity of the media elite are sources of bias that MBFC does not adequately account for.

!politics and !world now appear to be willing to consider backing away from MBFC. The vote to “Kill” – stop their bot from advertising MBFC in all of community posts – appears to be leading in both communities.

If you upvote the Kill comment so that this lead becomes a landslide, you can make it even more embarrassing and difficult for them to claim ‘bots’ or backtrack.

ABC News is a brand of Disney Advertising. It is lead by a conservative billionaire, and is not a left-biased organization.

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. Dave Van Zandt has admitted to a US-centric bias in MBFC’s ratings. It’s fairly easy to notice an American conservative lean in MBFC’s bias ratings, as well as their credibility ratings.

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. 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.

Please choose “Kill” – to stop giving free advertising to MBFC on Lemmy.

• Lemmyverse.link for !world
• Lemmyverse.link for !politics

Voice of America (VOA) is a state media network funded by the United States of America, whose purpose is to project soft power through journalism. In 1948, Voice of America was forbidden to broadcast directly to American citizens to protect the public from propaganda by its own government. The restriction was removed in 2013 to to adapt to the Internet age.

In 2005, the Washington Post reported that suspected Al-qaeda operatives were flown into Thailand to be detained and tortured. VOA’s remote relay radio station in Udon Thani province has been widely suspected to be the torture site.

Most people do not believe that propaganda is anything that disagrees with the United States Government’s foreign policy, and find the idea that the VOA is less biased than the New York Times laughable. Lemmy.World endorses these absurdities by advertising Media Bias Fact Check in every post in their community. You have a limited time to let !politics and !world know what you think.

For the first time in decades, The Washington Post will not endorse a candidate in this year’s presidential election, the newspaper’s publisher announced Friday, a decision that sparked widespread outrage among the paper’s staffers.

“The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election,” Post publisher Will Lewis said in a statement. “We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.”

The Post reported the decision not to endorse was made by the newspaper’s billionaire owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, citing two sources briefed on the matter.

– CNN

Media Bias Fact Check is a right-wing propaganda tool to repeat the laughable lie that the media has a left-wing bias.

I think David Van Zandt has a vendetta against Philip Weiss. Racists tend to be unfeeling or feel contempt for ‘lesser’ racial groups, and are merely indifferent to their suffering. The most intense ‘hate’ in hate groups comes from the intensity of feeling racists have toward other people of their own race they perceive as ‘race traitors’ - who demonstrate that people who share their culture and heritage can afford empathy for the ‘other’ whom racists believe are unworthy of concern.

Truthout is a reputable website, with good journalism and reporting. There’s a number of other websites that report favorably on Palestinians, and don’t toe Van Zandt’s line that criticism of Israel and antisemitism are the same thing. They have higher ‘Credibility’ and ‘Factual Reporting’ scores than Truthout. But Truthout occasionally rehosts reporting from Mondoweiss, a site that Van Zandt has labelled as ‘antisemitic,’ and therefore Truthout must be punished for giving support to the most notorious enemy of Israel – ‘self-hating’ Jews.

HuffPost was founded by four people, including Arianna Huffington, CEO of Thrive Global, and Andrew Breitbart, who also built the alt-right outlet Breitbart News. Breitbart was also instrumental in founding The Drudge Report, an early popular news site that promoted news and opinion favorable to the Republican Party, and was The Huffington Post’s direct inspiration, with the focus instead on the Democratic party and ‘progressive’ values.

CNN is part of the Warner Bros. Discovery advertising portfolio.

MBFC classifies pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, and anti-genocide bias in reporting as left-biased, but also classifies CNN as Left-Center biased. CNN staff say network’s pro-Israel slant amounts to ‘journalistic malpractice’.

ABC News is a brand of Disney Advertising.

Manufacturing Consent has this to say about Disney news media:

Ben Bagdikian notes that when the first edition of his Media Monopoly was published in 1983, fifty giant firms dominated almost every mass medium; but just seven years later, in 1990, only twenty-three firms occupied the same commanding position.

Since 1990, a wave of massive deals and rapid globalization have left the media industries further centralized in nine transnational conglomerates-Disney, AOL Time Warner, Viacom (owner of CBS), News Corporation, Bertelsmann, General Electric (owner of NBC), Sony, AT&T-Liberty Media, and Vivendi Universal. These giants own all the world’s major film studios, TV networks, and music companies, and a sizable fraction of the most important cable channels, cable systems, magazines, major-market TV stations, and book publishers. The largest, the recently merged AOL Time Warner, has integrated the leading Internet portal into the traditional media system. Another fifteen firms round out the system, meaning that two dozen firms control nearly the entirety of media experienced by most U.S. citizens. Bagdikian concludes that “it is the overwhelming collective power of these firms, with their corporate interlocks and unified cultural and political values, that raises troubling questions about the individual’s role in the American democracy.”