this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
254 points (100.0% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1110 readers
157 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 8 months ago
MODERATORS
 


Edit: Even MBFC rates dropsitenews as a reliable source https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drop-site-news-bias-and-credibility/

MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

There is no rule about 'blog sites' on worldnews. Jordanlund has made this up and proceeds to classify anything he does not like as a 'blog '.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 99 points 1 month ago (26 children)

We've been over this.

Anyone can set up a Substack blog. It's not a valid source. Same with Blogger, same with Medium.

If it gets posted through a legitmate news source, it's 100% welcome.

Blog sites aren't news.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Drop Site is not a simple “substack blog.” It’s a new project created and run by journalists/founders from The Intercept who parted ways because of their mismanagement. Everyone including the journalist who shared this article has extensive experience as a professional journalist and bylines with major publications.

Is Time a blog because it runs on Wordpress?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (20 children)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I’m with you here. News sites will mirror this to confirm its legitimacy, and that should be linked, not the substack.

People don’t like it, but man, I would love it if Lemmy preserves information hygiene as it grows.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, the mods of both News and Politics went through this with the Luigi manifesto. We just had to remove all of it until an actual news agency vetted it.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago

News agencies don't verify shit anymore, one takes the bait and the other ones just parrot it to infinity trying to be the first ones to get to their audience's clicks

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 month ago (17 children)

Substack is not a blogging platform. You can host a blog using Substack, but not every site built using Substack is a blog.

Dropsitenews is clearly not a blog. That should be immediately evident if you open the website. The about-page also clearly explains how they are an independent news organization with reputable journalists working for it. Even MBFC classifies them as a news organization.

If your argument is "it's a substack website so it's a blog, but a completely identical-looking website that's not built using substack isn't a blog, so it's allowed", then you're not arguing along the lines of rule 1, you're arguing along the lines of an unwritten rule that is supposed to help reinforce rule 1. If so, it should be explained in the sidebar. The post as-is does not violate rule 1 in any reasonable interpretation. If you have a different argumentation as to why Dropsitenews is a blog, you should provide it so that people know what to expect from the mod team.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 month ago (3 children)

This is an absolutely braindead lazy take.

The same professional journalists who've worked at these big media corporations have used the substack platform to open up sites in droves so they can focus on more niche topics, or just escape the censorship of owners and advertisers.

If you think that legitimate news can only come from a company owned by billionaires, then you're wrong.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Then Hosam was not a journalist but a terrorist. Because he writes for a news organisation which publishes their articles using Substack.

Thank you for censoring a journalist who died to get the word out, using made up rules. You must be very proud of yourself.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's not about censoring anyone, it's removing invalid sources. If they get re-hosted through a legitimate news site like Al Jazeera, fantastic. Go for it.

But we aren't going to allow the community to be filled with bullshit blog sources.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (34 children)

Dropsitenews, a site ran by two top ex-journalists from TheIntercept, is a "blog site" because it is published on SubStack?

This is clearly gatekeeping so only mainstream media sources are allowed and no independent journalists.

You do not get to decide what is and what is not journalism. You are refusing to provide factual errors in the reporting and instead go for a cheap cop-out.

load more comments (34 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Terminal liberal brain. PTB.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Enforcing the rules of the community.

"Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

Post news articles only"

I mean, it doesn't get any more plain than that. But I guess it requires people to actually read the sidebar...

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (5 children)

So you're also removing any post that has an archive link to bypass paywalls?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (12 children)

Dropsite is another Substack blog and would be removed.

MSN might be tricky because they basically steal content with a link forwarder. Looks like, in this case, they're ripping off ZNetwork:

https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/hossam-shabats-last-article/

Znetwork is solid, MSN? Eh, I'd treat it as a link forwarder and remove it.

Jewish Voice For Labor looks good though!

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Dropsite is another Substack blog and would be removed.

I would say if you are removing dropsite, the rule is missing the forest through the trees. I get the need to have standards.

I think we can all acknowledge that we live on a shifting plane of mediums and media, and really, we are seeing a resurgence of what I would call "blog-type" news sites. This has coincided with an almost complete collapse of where most of these substackers were formerly employed, eg, digital media companies. Digital media's collapse isn't new news, and many of these substacks came about as a direct response to digital media companies going under. Many of these stubstacks are the journalism one would have found at those companies.

I guess the point I want to make is that being a legacy media site doesn't a valid news source make, nor does a news outlet which is effectively a single/ small group of journalists not valid news it make.

And especially in the context of the near total collapse of digital media over the previous 4 years, by insisting things be from effectively legacy digital media sources, we're really winnowing down the options, from even, a year ago. It would seem like editing and fact checking, and abiding by some set of journalistic standards are more important.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The reason we remove all substack blogs is we aren't going to be drawn into a debate over "Buh, buh, you allowed THEIR link!! Why not miiiiiine!!?!?!?" as I explained in the other PTB thread when this came up.

If it's a legitimate news source, great! Hats off to you. If it's not a legitimate news source, it's getting removed. We don't care who wrote it.

If the story is ONLY available on bullshit sources and you can't find it on a reputable news site, you need to step back and ask why rather than yell at the mods.

I know, I've been there before... super juicy story broken by... checks notes... "New York Post", well fuck me, right? Let's wait a day or so and see if a real paper picks it up.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

I get the spirit of the rule and I also agree in the importance of a degree of editorial over site. But like, something like 60-80% of digital media companies that existed 5 years ago are gone. And substack has grown to fill that void.

Its really, really difficult to make the claim that sub-stack isn't news at this point, when its where like, the news is actually happening.

It seems to me that a list of pre-approved substacks which either a) undergo editorial review, or b) demonstrate that they follow a certain level of journalistic standard. That same standard could be used to put news sources that don't meet those requirements could be added to a ban-list.

If its a legacy media enterprise, they are assumed editorial until proven to fail in that regard. If its a substack/ blog, they have to demonstrate they do journalism to a certain level of quality.

So like white list for some blogs/ black list for legacy media.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Blog sites aren’t news.

Do you mean "aren't news sites?"

Because not being a news site and not being news are two different things.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Sorry, YDI.

It's a known rule, it's been explained, and there are other places to post if you don't like that rule.

If it was the only C/ for posting things like that, it might not matter much that the rule about substack exists, but there are many places for it.

Edit: also, it's just a removal, that's not even close to power tripping by itself; there would have to be other factors to approach that standard.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children)

It is not a rule. Nowhere in the sidebar of the worldnews subreddit does it say that SubStack is not a valid source. Nor does it say anything about "blogs". It says

Post news articles only

And this is most definitely a news article.

JordanLund is using his moderator powers to selectively decide what is and what is not "news" at his own whims.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 month ago (1 children)

YDI

The "you can't post stuff from blogs" rule is common on many communities. It's not because of who he is, it's because you can't post Substack stuff. The rule is fine, I actually don't love it but there's a valid reason for it. Stop pretending it is some kind of pro-Israel bias when that has literally nothing at all to do with this.

Since the people whining extensively about liberal censorship didn't take the much smaller length of time it would have taken to instead just post to [email protected] the exact same story from Z Network, I've done it for you. You're welcome.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thanks for that! I would have done it, but I saw too much abuse on reddit where mods would remove something only to add it themselves because... ? They wanted the imaginary internet points? 🤔 I never got that but saw it way, way too often.

Fuckin' mods... Wait, what? 😉

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (34 children)

Yeah. The fact that none of them were interested enough to post it, even when you found it for them, sent them the link, and told them that it was a solid source and you wouldn't remove it, kind of tells the whole story IMO: They're all just excited because there is finally a single datum that sort of looks at first glance like the persistent myth that lemmy.world is in any way pro-Israel is finally, for all time, confirmed, and we all need to feel super strongly about it and remember it forever.

load more comments (34 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Bruh its Jordan. Worst mod around. Just par for the course.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Another Jordan Lund post, another chance to remind everyone that @[email protected] is a racist and a zionist and will do whatever he can to delete pro-Palestinian posts, or posts that criticize Israel.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago (30 children)

The #2 post on the current "top 6 hours" view is criticizing Israel. He also posted in this article offering some other sources that were more reliable that would be good for this story, and all the people complaining ignored them. Eventually one of them was reposted (somehow), and is still up. Shocker.

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago

Beyond the publicly known political preference of the mod, I think it's strange that a community on a social media site built on activitypub would have a blanked policy against the posting of other self-published news sources, irrespective of the authors and journalists and their proven reputation.

That said, my take on lemmy moderation has always been JDS, or 'just decentralize, stupid'. We're not reddit, and we don't want to be like reddit, so we shouldn't be going out of our way to centralize communities or complain when we don't like the moderation choices or rules of a community we think ought to be managed differently.

load more comments
view more: next ›