Hey all! Friendly neighborhood mod here!
I’ve just been added (along with @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world (HEY SQUID!)) to the OTHER World News community, “worldnews”, totally separate from this group “world”.
The reason being, the mods there had effectively retired. Hurts, the lead mod, stepped away and hadn’t been active for MONTHS, and post and comment reports were PILING up, to a point where the Admins asked in our Discord chat going “Hey, what’s going on with worldnews?”
Which left ME confused, because “world” has a friendly name of “World News” and is generally up to date on the report queue unless two users are engaging in:
Which, (sigh), happens way more often than I’d like, but what are you going to do?
Before they left 5 months ago, Hurts had pinned a question to worldnews asking, basically, “Do we NEED world AND worldnews?” which I think is a valid question.
There are some key differences, world doesn’t accept video links or text pieces, but there’s no rule against that in worldnews, so it’s a little more free-form than world, although both require legitimate news sources.
So for now, consider the discussion OPEN! Keep them both? Close one or the other?
The volume difference is pretty dramatic:
world:
worldnews:
You must log in or # to comment.
All I know is that we need as many alternatives as possible to the Tankie run worldnews@lemmy.ml
We don’t need many, we just need a good one. So nuke the smaller one referring to the larger one.
There’s been rather public infighting on lemmy.world based on the pinned posts on this community.
A moderator on this community (@MightBe) collected community feedback on a post (https://lemmy.world/post/10102462) because of discontent with how the community was being run. The other moderators were unhappy with that mod, so they removed him, removed the post, and pinned this post instead: https://lemmy.world/post/10656753
I’m not sure what’s going on in private, but publicly there’s been a lot of drama. It’s also been revealed that some members of the current group of moderators have been rather unprofessional imo. I’m quoting from a previous comment:
Some mods have also been deleting comments that add context to mod abuse. @naturalgasbad gave me the full DM context for their “bad faith argument” with a moderator (they did not specify which one), which I posted in a comment in the other pinned thread. It’s a rather childish escalation sequence imo. That comment was deleted for “violating Rule 6”, but I have copied it below for the record:
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.
.ee libs strawmanning against .ml how classic.
I love having a community where I can continue spreading news like “China economy collapsing” and ignore the unreliable numbers from Caixin and S&P that are reporting manufacturing PMI of 51.1 (official number: 50.8), services PMI being above 50 for months, and unreliable numbers from Citi raising growth forecasts to 5%.
In fact, it’s much better to have a community to critique Chinese companies for the absolute horror of daring to “dump” clean energy resources on the open market at such a low cost that they can only make small profits. This is a real danger to the stability of fossil fuel prices which form the backbone of conventional energy markets.
Removed by mod
Edit: The following is a criticism of the moderation practices in this community.
Jordanlund seems cool with comments not only out of the blue attacking others for their religion, but also of using their mod powers to add flaired “context”in support of those attacks when reports of such abuse come in.
begin original post:
Although there may be consequences to me speaking out, I believe it’s important that I address this issue.
I recently came across a comment here in !world which appeared to be a clear rule 4 violation. Link: https://lemmy.world/comment/8955763 I am not a part of the religious community that this commenter chose to attack. But to me, there was no context or invitation wherein this attack was qualified as healthy community debate. It seemed entirely out of spite and bad faith.
For context:
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
I proceeded to report this comment for violating rule 4. What precipitated next was very concerning. OP, a mod in this community, saw my report of the comment, and doubled down on the comment’s spiteful thesis in a new comment. Again, there is no context that invited debate, it was just dogpiling anti-religious sentiment. The comment is still up, you can see for yourself.
My concern is that the mod should have either:
- Taken action on the report and moved on
- OR ignored the report and moved on.
Either of these would have been fine. I can’t pretend to know about religious context enough to know how this is best dealt with.
However, instead of either of these acceptable options, we have an indefensible scenario. OP jumped into the conversation with more unasked-for debate, quoting a bunch of anti-religious sentiment simply because of my report.
Again, fortunately I am not a part of this religious group. But others on this site probably are, and users should not have to worry about their reports getting dogpiled by mod-flaired comments.
With this comment I ask for accountability from OP and the other mods on this team. What can we do to make sure that users do not feel unsafe reporting content that they may find deliberately offensive?
As a mod, it’s my right to ignore your report as well as reply to the thread to add context.
Today is, largely, considered a monotheistic holiday even though the vast majority celebrating it is blissfully unaware of the polytheistic origins of it.
I didn’t call you out on your report, I simply left the comment in situ as it broke no rules, and added context to it.
Oddly enough, I come to this discussion not caring what your “rights” are lmao. I’m here to care that a community that handles a tremendous diversity of topics is run in a professional manner.
Your response has made it clear that you don’t value that at all, so genuinely thanks for the confirmation that you will continue this behavior.
I don’t believe flyingsquid has an appropriate temperament to moderate a current events community
FlyingSquid seems fine for the most part, but OP here has routinely pushed some crazy right wing stuff in past comments. This seems like what happened at reddit with certain subs being taken over in an organized way to silence certain viewpoints/content in favor of others.
At least here we can create identical communities on other instances, so we’ll have to wait and see how things turn out.
this is just bad faith engagement, and you can see them doing this and other trolling techniques in their comment history
flyingsquid isn’t even a mod of that community so this example isn’t doing much, sorry.
in comparison, jordanlund here has confirmed that they intend to continue using their mod position as a platform to support pretty obvious troll attempts with niche, uncited, subjective “context.”
again, something i’d be absolutely fine seeing in r/atheism or other communities with a strong sense of localized sociocultural philosophy, but for the fifth largest community that claims to reject opinion articles, this is absurdly unprofessional.
edit: spelling
OP has now tripled down on their behavior so my judgement is pretty much decided. If this was a highly specific political/philosophical community maybe, but for a community that claims to represent world news this behavior is laughably unacceptable.
Curious to know what others think. Gonna start curating my feed perhaps. Any sublemmies you would recommend?
If this is a pattern I would call for replacement of staff. Haven’t seen evidence to support that yet personally.
My comment’s in regards to jordanlund; I don’t have an opinion of flyingsquid.
Supporting organised religion is not a sentiment people should have. If they do, they are always free to leave Lemmy.
Mod abuse? Impossible.
I would ask the admins if they can kill worldnews and rename world to worldnews. Or merge it in. Worldnews is clearly the more appropriate name.
I’d also like to keep the posts to news articles from actual sources. Political YouTubers are very low-quality sources for news. (If it’s one of those things like CBS just clipping their live broadcast and putting it under a headline, I don’t like it but I think it’s okay.)
I don’t think it makes sense to keep them if the mods are the same. If nobody else wants to step up to keep the community going, then focus your efforts on the one community.
Oh, I’m totally willing to step aside and let Squid do it, I only volunteered because the community needed help ASAP. :)
Not accepting video or text pieces seems someewhat limiting. Sometimes those are quite important News.
Also I can’t seem to find the world community.
This is world. You’re in it. :) worldnews is the other one.
Personally, the confusion ALONE merits removal, but I wouldn’t just do that without engaging the users. :)
Your way of writing EMPHASIS is quite jarring 😅.
There’s markdown support, like this.
Very confusing indeed since the name and title of the Community aren’t the same.
Wait so is this the large instance?
Compared to worldnews? World is a giant!
Ohhh I get it now. Their name is world news. Thanks!
How do you vet videos, though? Do the mods have to watch each of them in their entirety?
A lot of them that get posted are opinion or aren’t from news sources.
Plus, how is a reader supposed to know where the headline comes from when the link is just to YouTube (etc)?
And on a petty note, lol, I’d much rather read the news than have someone read / spoon-feed it to me.
What’s the difference between a video from a media outlet and a written article by the same outlet ?
The URL in the post for the article will indicate the media outlet.
The URL for the video will usually be YouTube or something else that doesn’t make it immediately apparent where it comes from.
If it’s an official Video they will have a publicly known speaker and official branding. Also official accounts on YouTube or other platforms like Twitter.
Yeah, but you have to click into to even know that.
A lot of people, myself included, just add the info in the headline to our collective knowledge without reading the article or watching the video. I’m not clicking into every video to see who puts it out (a legit source or some whack job casting from their mom’s basement). Having the actual source (via the URL) front and center with the headline goes a long way toward combating misinformation.
This (the community of this post) is the world community. !world@lemmy.world.
No point in keeping 2 similar communities, especially if they are on same instance.
Hope we will get post tags one day, that would help with filtering if someone really wants this
world doesn’t accept video links or text pieces
Unless you or Squid (et al?) have some grand vision to differentiate it from world, I don’t see why worldnews should exist. I don’t personally think allowing video is enough of a difference - or should be allowed here. It’s probably just confusing users more than anything. Although I subscribe and post here and not there, so maybe their users find some value in it I’m not aware of.
Can you have a community redirect to another on Lemmy? Seems like directing worldnews here would be a good idea
That would be pretty cool in this case, but if that became a general feature people might snag up a whole lot of names to all direct them to the same place.
That’s the piece I’m not aware of, we’ll probably need to engage with the Admins on that.
Worldneews sucks balls. I got banned for ‘yellow peril’ after criticizing china’s incursion into the scs. Mods or automod just execute bans without avenue for recourse or discussion. Caused me to block the entire instance. Some of the tankies even followed me here when I tried to open a discussion about it. Let it die and focus moderation efforts on world. Better to have one decent forum than several loosely moderated ones where brigading and cytros can take hold. Good riddance.
I had to look up what happened because the problem on worldnews was a LACK of moderation rather than OVER moderation.
Turns out, it was the worldnews on lemmy.ml not lemmy.world, but it also looks like it was just a 3 day ban.
FWIW, what you wrote also looked 100% factual to me:
For those unaware of the territorial disputes in the South China Sea, man, is it complex:
Thanks for the insight. Would you happen to know how reports are handled? I.e. are the posts removed/ users banned pending review by the mods, or did a moderator execute the ban after review? Where should I direct my consternation? An overzealous mod, or a oversensitive user?
I’m from an ASEAN nation,.and aware of the spratly and more recent issues. Afaik, the scs is named such due to its location, but chinas claim is that it was historically their territory, pointing to some obscure document in their archives. From my viewpoint, they are mostly international waters and should be left as such.
Edited to add that yes, it was on lemmy.ml. Your post was in relation to worldnews.lemmy.world? Apologies if that was the case.
Yup, you got banned on lemmy.ml and this is on lemmy.world.
Posts and comments get reported by users and from there go to a moderation queue.
Mods then collectively go through the queue of reports and decide what to do, from ignoring the report, to banning a user.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/17ocaZb-bGg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
