this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
83 points (84.9% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

954 readers
246 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.


Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules


Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
 

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 🤦

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 47 minutes ago

Weekly reminder that Jordan Lund is the same piece of shit Zionist redditor that hates BLM because protests are too loud and inconvenience him. The dude is a republican shitstain.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

The community rules cleary states that opinion pieces and unreliable sources are subject to removal. You posted the epitome of an unreliable source. This is just enforcing the rules.

YDI.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 42 minutes ago (1 children)

Doesn’t matter what the source is, anybody with eyes can figure out that the article is truthful from the fact Glasgow fans have a habit of bringing giant Palestinian flags to games.

Plus, Jordan is a piece of shit conservative who hates minorities.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 38 minutes ago (1 children)

Doesn’t matter what the source is

I disagree.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 minutes ago

Well, you’re allowed to. But you’re not allowed to ignore the part about the source being right and still act like you’re not full of shit.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It's not an opinion piece and the author himself is a reliable source.

By the logic of you and jordanlund, everything Malala Yousafzai ever said in should have been dismissed as unreliable for happening in a Taliban-controlled area.

Or, for a less hyperbolic example of the opposite, automatically trusting every source with a good reputation to the point where you trust the New York Times on stories regarding Palestine or cops.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

It’s not an opinion piece and the author himself is a reliable source.

But the website that is publishing it, isn't. There is also the occasional accurate article on breitbart or foxnews ... doesn't mean those sources should be allowed.

If your author is reliable, surley a more reliable source will publish his article. Link to that instead.

By the logic of you and jordanlund, everything Malala Yousafzai ever said in should have been dismissed as unreliable for happening in a Taliban-controlled area.

There is no logic to that statement.

Or, for a less hyperbolic example of the opposite, automatically trusting every source with a good reputation to the point where you trust the New York Times on stories regarding Palestine or cops.

If a source has repeatedly demonstratate to be unreliable, that is a good reason to completely avoid that source. But that does in no way imply that a source that has demonstrated to be reliable should always be trusted. Not even sure how you got there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 minutes ago* (last edited 1 minute ago)

under 1 day old account... let me check the source

edit: ??? contradictory but i invalidate

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

There is a link in my previous answer?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Yeah a couple hundreds of people wrote a letter. Very interesting.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Aaaaaah. You're german. I get it now. Enjoy that thales money while you can lmao

Genapos

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

You’re german

Enjoy that thales money

But Thales is French?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

who cares? take krupp or nobel, point still stands. You guys clearly have conflict of interest.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 hour ago

Franks are germanix.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 hour ago

That's a very biased and oriented way of presenting things. Why do you hate arab kids?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

There is also the occasional accurate article on breitbart or foxnews

Not really, no. They DEFINITELY don't have a whole topic area where they're generally reliable, like Mint has with Palestine.

I'm not saying that Mint don't publish misinformation and other bullshit as well, but on Palestine specifically, they seem to be ok from what little I've seen.

If your author is reliable, surley a more reliable source will publish his article.

That would be the case if it was a general interest news story, sure, but not an article about solidarity amongst football fans.

While rage bait tends to get circulated widely, only certain outlets will publish a POSITIVE story, even if it DOES relate to a controversial subject.

If a source has repeatedly demonstratate to be unreliable, that is a good reason to completely avoid that source

Unless its reliability varies from subject to subject. Like in this case where a site that might be susceptible to Kremlin propaganda might also publish good stories that other outlets wouldn't.

But that does in no way imply that a source that has demonstrated to be reliable should always be trusted. Not even sure how you got there.

I got there by applying logic to demonstrate how illogical and prejudiced your absolutist stance is.

If unreliable = always unreliable, it logically follows that reliable = always reliable. Claiming otherwise is textbook hypocrisy and intellectually dishonest or at least a sign of poor self-awareness.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 39 minutes ago* (last edited 36 minutes ago)

I’m not saying that Mint don’t publish misinformation and other bullshit as well, but on Palestine specifically, they seem to be ok from what little I’ve seen.

And if you asked on .grad or .ml, peopel will say their reporting on Russia/Ukraine is ok, too.

The fact that this publisher was funded by the Syrian, Russian and Iranian government is more then enough red flags for me to compleltey dismiss them as a source. If individual articles have merit, they'll be published somewhere else.

Like in this case where a site that might be susceptible to Kremlin propaganda might also publish good stories that other outlets wouldn’t.

If the only site willing to publish a specific article is a Kremlin propaganda site, you should stop and ask why.

If unreliable = always unreliable, it logically follows that reliable = always reliable. Claiming otherwise is textbook hypocrisy and intellectually dishonest or at least a sign of poor self-awareness.

That is some terrible logic.

Ignoring someone that has repeatedly and deliberately lied to you is common sense. They can't be trusted. But that doesn't mean that someone that has never lied to you is infallible. They could still make mistakes or start lying to you tomorrow. You should never turst blindly. They are two completely indepent scenarios.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 hours ago

This is the mod who shielded UniversalMonk for months and only banned them once like 1000 people loudly harped on it for weeks. Fuck that guy

[–] [email protected] 24 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

But anyone who isn't a moron knows that MBFC is an incredibly biased source...... Right?

Literally they make it so obvious

[–] [email protected] 16 points 13 hours ago

They think that because it claims to be accurate, therefore it is. No fact checking of themselves, no matter how it is completely wrong and treats liberal media as far left, and fox news are center right, it's the godsend for the mods to remove anything they dislike.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Christ on a bike.

I have a hard time taking seriously anything or anyone who says “Far-Left Biased” (esp. with that capitalization) unironically.

Lazy PTB on the grounds of (maybe mindlessly) parroting Fox News rhetoric instead of researching themselves.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

Far left = center left

Just shift every bias check result to the right a bunch and its correct lol

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 14 hours ago (10 children)

TIL Mint Press News.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News

MintPress News supported former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, and the governments of Russia and Iran.[3][4]

The editor had investors, who Muhawesh claimed were "retired businesspeople", but she would not name them

Soon afterward, Brian Lambert of MinnPost wrote an article following up on Burke's challenge to find out where MintPress's money came from. He reported that emails to them went unanswered, their phone was disconnected, and the original office address in Plymouth, Minnesota, "haven't been valid in well over a year". While MintPress listed 20 of its writers, Lambert wrote it did not indicate where the money was "coming from to pay any of these people".[16]

MintPress News has reposted content from Russian state media outlets RT and Sputnik,[25][26] and is listed as a "partner" of PeaceData, a Russian fake news site run by the Internet Research Agency.[27][28][29] A report from New Knowledge includes MintPress News as part of the "Russian web of disinformation,"[30][31] and the site has published fake authors attributed to the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency.[32] MintPress News defended Russia's invasion of Crimea, claiming Ukraine's post-revolution government was "illegitimate".[33]

Sounds like YDI. MBFC is horrible of course, but it sounds like in this case they got it right (somehow focusing in one of the only things Mint Press gets right, being "anti-Israel", presumably as a performative cover so they'll fit in better among other general left wing news. Which of course triggered MBFC, which is part of the whole reason why it's clever for them to include a whole bunch of "Israel's the bad guys" in among the "Russia's the good guys.")

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Oh i just realized that stupid bias check bot has been gone for a while. Everyone hated it so i guess it was killed or blocked at some point? Anyone know the story?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Personally I haven't seen it for ages because I blocked it, but if I was to guess, the mods finally relented to the overwhelming majority? 🤷

[–] [email protected] 17 points 13 hours ago (19 children)

They held a vote after insisting for ages that it was a ‘small minority’ of users that had a problem with it. It wasn’t 90/10, but it wasn’t 50/50 either.

Oh, and they only held the vote after jordanlund claimed he would get demodded by the admins if he removed the bot. And when someone pinged an admin they said they had no idea how he got that impression, lol.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Also, a big part of their argument was that it was the only option, nothing else would do that had an API endpoint and had affordable terms of use. I offered to provide them an API endpoint to Wikipedia's sources list (which is precisely the same thing as MBFC, just... accurate and detailed) in exactly the same format, and they said no no that won't do. I wrote code to actually fetch and parse Wikipedia's list so they could make the bot follow actually-accurate source rankings with additional details and everything. Rooki silently received the message, then there was a long delay, then a little "Wikipedia" line started showing up way down below the awful MBFC rankings that were still front and center.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›