Since yesterday, Jordanlund is continuing to remove reporting like that from the reputed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_Site_News (article depicted in the screenshot is https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/israeli-spy-yoni-koren-stayed-jeffrey-epstein-apartment-ehud-barak) just for being hosted with substack. He is now moderating World News and Politics at lemmy.world.
Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
goodness, that is not the point. That means these outlets post to their own website while also reposting the thing on twitter. In so many cases, their own website uses substack/wordpress! For example, https://time.com/ is the official website of Time magazine, as in the publisher of Time Person of the Year. It uses WordPress, as you can see by going to https://time.com/wp-admin/.
If he wants to target blogspam, he should be targeting things like The Daily Beast and https://www.utubepublisher.in/, which use none of the technologies he's targeting. This ban on CMS technology is arbitrary and does not prevent poor publishing that simply registers a domain, as anyone may register a domain.
Did you have an opinion on my comments, or did you just see an easy opening with "you aren't a mod of world?" and take the jab? Never said I was a mod there.
World's size and genre don't have anything to do with my comments, and it's hard to believe users are as bad as you say when you still mod a bunch of big communities. Kind of infantilizing the way you talk about people in the comments, too.
If I'm wrong, I'm down with hearing why.
So, are they complaining, suggesting, or asking for clarity? And, like I said, World already allows poor journalism, so the ban on substack isn't really quality control.
It's very simple, World users break the rules, get modded, and run screaming to PTB.
Citation? This entire thread. It's a unique animal different from others that I mod or you mod.
Again, partly due to the size, but partly due to the heated nature of the content.
People want, really want, to be the first to post something, even if it's a supremely shitty source or outside the bounds of the community. It gets modded and the reaction is "How dare you!"
Yeah, how dare I mod a community, fuck me, right?
Just tonight, I pulled one about Trump wanting to cancel the 2026 elections. Sorry, goes in !news@lemmy.world or !politics@lemmy.world , not World.
But man, people will stretch and scream to make their point. Then the reaction is "Well, I don't like your rules, change them." How about "No." Don't like the rules? Go somewhere else. LOL.
This isn't the only platform I've had to moderate a community. I've had far more difficulty in IRL spaces where people can not only complain to my face, but through throwaway accounts and emails. I'm not speaking from a lack of experience.
I can see why the news brings in some heated arguments, especially a community as big as world. Mine are small, yet I see disproportionate drama (and the occasional angry dm) about headlines and my rare mod actions.
I can even relate to the difficulty treading the line with the rule on internal american news.
But again, this reads like you really hate the users. People aren't running and screaming here, especially not in this post — It's someone with a legitimate concern and a reasoned argument, and, with as big a ship as World, people are going to have ideas about how to steer it. Opinions and questions aren't the same as an indignant "how dare you," framing it that way is disingenuous and speaks to how you view the people here. They're not a amorphous blob of hate, some are just folks wanting a honest conversation.
Oh, no, I don't hate the users in general. There are SPECIFIC users I hate, like that one asshole who comes out of nowhere with a new account, posts a dozen times, and deletes their account over and over and over again.
I would say, of the mod actions I take, maybe 1 in 100 becomes a problem? Most people either take it like a grown up and move on with life or actually apologize and do better.
But man, that 1 in 100...
I find it difficult to hate anyone one here. We're all just trying to make sense of the world. I share stories of the small minority with my drama loving friends, so it's a positive in the end.
In this situation, it's an obviously engaged user who genuinely wants to know more. I like people who are passionate about something enough to not only spend energy thinking about it, but think about ways to improve things. Those are valuable users who shouldn't be dissuaded from sharing their ideas.
Speaking of that 1 in 100... PM tonight... Dude had a comment removed for referencing a "final solution", another mod banned them, I get this:
I don't know what you're trying to say here. That people suck on the internet? You do get that we're all in this cursed place together, right?
I'm not gonna pull a "eat because starving kids in Africa" because folks who threaten to burn down someone's house are a bad time for everyone, but I've been getting rape threats since I was on the internet. You get shit for being a mod, half the population gets shit for being women. We all get shit for some reason or another.
That person sucks and that situation sucks but you don't have my sympathy for it.
No, I'm saying that 99/100 times moderation is just administrata, but man, that 1/100 case...
Crazy.