The moderators have a source blocklist in their rule set. Mintpress is not listed in it.
That Mintpress?
MintPress News was a major media domain that spread disinformation about the White Helmets, a Syrian volunteer organization.[7] The site has been accused of regularly publishing pro-Russian propaganda,[8] and has been described as a conspiratorial website by media studies and disinformation scholars.[9][10]
LOL. Y’all should check out the imperial NyTimes.
Reading the wikipedia page I am not seeing a source to the MintPress article about White Helmets. Can you link the White Helm article they are talking about?
Click on the [7] and follow the link. Its all there if you are genuinely looking. It connects to a very in depth analysis.
[7] redirects to pay 30 bucks to read a paper. Am I doing something wrong?
Can say the same about virtually any Western media outlet pushing lies about Libya or Israel now for that matter.
Mixed on this one. Its not listed in the block list, but it should be. Mod made the right call, but, yes, it’s technically not forbidden.
Nothing wrong with the article.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Share it from a reputable source then
Are sources you consider reputable able to identify what a Nazi salute is?
Interesting, because their inability to identify it could easily make them… not reputable.
Hey that’s a damn fair point!
NPH (no power tripping here) it’s likely they just forgot to update the sidebar and this could have been solved by a quick convo with the mods.
i would not say YDI (you deserved it) tho as it’s not even punishment or silencing to get a mod action like this. they are keeping the community in shape—that doesn’t mean you are in trouble.
YDI. A blocklist is not an exhaustive resource of unreliable sources that will not be accepted, it just hits the most common unreliable sources.
The rule says check the blocklist for not allowed sources. If the mods decide a source unreliable they should add it to their blocklist.
Even funnier that New York Post is allowed but discouraged.
If the mods decide a source unreliable they should add it to their blocklist.
How long are you expecting the blocklist to be, then?
What is the point of the blocklist if it contain no websites and the moderators decide on the fly what they want to block?
What is the point of the blocklist if it contain no websites
It literally contains several websites, as noted by your own screenshot in the OP.
and the moderators decide on the fly what they want to block?
A blocklist is not an exhaustive resource of unreliable sources that will not be accepted, it just hits the most common unreliable sources.
It contains four websites and allows Fox News.
It contains four websites
You may note that “four websites” =/= “no websites”. Advanced math, I know. Also, it’s five websites, even if we exclude the link-shortener bitly.
and allows Fox News.
How is that relevant to your argument?
You become so anal about taking everything literally. Except the rules written by the mods, apparently. Those you are willing to bend as far backwards for as needed.
100% PTB, but why even use worldnews community at .world? It’s nothing more than an inferior version of reddit: the same echo chamber of western narratives, but with less activity and less content.
