“To the Feds, I'll keep this short, because I do respect what you do for our country. To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn't working with anyone. This was fairly trivial: some elementary social engineering, basic CAD, a lot of patience. The spiral notebook, if present, has some straggling notes and To Do lists that illuminate the gist of it. My tech is pretty locked down because I work in engineering so probably not much info there. I do apologize for any strife of traumas but it had to be done. Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.”
Post got removed in .world for not being a "news source" even though Klippenstein is definitely a very established independent journalist, so trying again here I guess.
I mean at this point it's whatever, but I did post it in News originally. It got removed for not being a "reputable news source" based on the modlog, but the current post about it in the same community is from Gizmodo, which is fine, but the only source they have for the manifesto is literally this link.
I get that it's on a substack, but just because a journalist publishes using substack and not some other web template (even though the site is their own URL, and the author is an independent journalist who worked at several fairly well known news orgs) doesn't mean it's not reputable. It just feels very arbitrary.
Also you guys clearly don't seem to ban substack, since there are multiple posts currently up that have been posted a day ago in one case, and 16 hours ago in the other, one of which is literally also from ken klippenstein. So why is it fine sometimes but not othertimes? I don't necessarily have an issue with a broad ban of any substack link (even though I personally think that would be kinda dumb), but that fact that it's so inconsistently enforced isn't good.
The problem with Substack, or Medium, or Blogger or any other blog site is that anyone can post anything. It's not a news platform.
Rather than go through each blog and go "OK, who is THIS guy? What's their deal?" we just go "Yeah, no."
Allowing some but not others would be an even BIGGER headache, because then it's clear Substack is fine for one person but not another.
But like I said, News currently has multiple recent posts from multiple different substack blogs. One of which was posted by FlyingSquid, a moderator of the WorldNews community.
If the blog is private, from a unique URL, and is run by an independent journalist or group of journalists, how is that any more effort than checking any other type of website? I could steal a HTML/CSS template for a news site right now, whip up a site where I post misinformation, and buy a domain for like 10 bucks, and you'd have to go through a lot more effort to verify it as legit than it would take to open the substack blog, click about, and copy the name into your search engine.
If an article is by something like apnews then yeah it doesn't take much effort to check, but if it's by some other random page, like a lot of the posted articles are, you'd need to check it at least once before you knew it was fine, so what specifically about substack makes it a problem?
Different communities have different rules, what applies to News may not apply somewhere else.
I get that, but I'm saying on lemmy.world/c/news there is a post by a moderator of another news community on your instance which is from a substack blog (another independent journalist, so I actually like the article being posted, I'm just mentioning it as an example). Obviously the rules differ between communities, but if a very similar community is fine with something, and so is the mod, and so are your mod team since you left it up for almost a day by now, then it seems odd to have that rule at all. And like I mentioned earlier, there is also a post from Ken Klippenstein's substack that was posted a day ago now, and that one was also fine. I get that moderators can miss things, but this wasn't a small post, and given it was on a subject you guys have been extremely aggressive (to put it lightly) in moderating, it seems likely that you guys saw it and made a decision that it was fine.
Like I said, I get why random blogs are banned, the point of a news community should be posting factual information from reliable sources. But you need to check each source anyway, at least the first time you see a specific URL, and since this substack page is only by Klippenstein, and has a very recognizable url, it shouldn't be any more effort to moderate than any other news website. If all substack pages followed the url scheme of blogname.substack.com or something I'd get it more, since then it's less of an independent page, but that's not how it works.
You're talking to a talking point.
He knows he's full of shit and refuses to take responsibility for anything.
Again, News has their own rules separate from Politics and World News.
Even if Politics and World News allowed Substack, the Klippenstein post would have been removed for it not being politics in one case, and for being internal US news in the other.
And again, that's very much not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I posted this article in News. It was removed for being an unreliable source. Despite this, the 2 posts I linked are both from substack, and both posted on News. Not another similar community, but lemmy.world/c/news. One of those posts is from Ken Klippenstein, same as this one, and was posted to his substack blog. It's on a topic you guys have been very heavy handed and aggressive in moderating this past week (not to start an argument about that in this thread, just bringing up the fact that posts and comments about this topic have been under increased scrutiny by the mods). Even so, that post was left up, and this one was removed.
Given that it seems like the News mod team was fine with these other posts from substack, and that kenklippenstein.com is a very unique URL, the same as any other news org would have, the argument that it's harder to moderate doesn't make any sense. The only meaningful difference between this substack page and a regular news website is that one is an independent journalist, and they use substack instead of a custom website design.
Either way, any independent journalist needs to be checked by the mods when someone posts an article from them, and given that Klippstein is the only source cited in the gizmodo article about this manifesto, clearly he must be considered a reliable source, since the gizmodo article wasn't removed.
You’ve got the patience of a saint. jordanlund is obviously purposefully ignoring what you’re saying so that he can argue a completely irrelevant point, because he has no satisfactory answer to your questions.
I can't speak to what News does or does not do, I'm not a mod there.
I have told you why it's removable under thr rules for Politics and World, both of which have different rules than News.
That's the way the communities work.
I did assume you were a News mod by mistake, so sorry about that.
My overall point though is just that News seems to be inconsistently applying a rule which isn't even really specified anywhere, and it would be nice if it was either clarified as a rule that any substack is banned, or not having substack alone as a grounds for removal, so that in the future anyone who posts an article from a reliable source that happens to use substack can't just have it and any conversations arbitrarily removed.
That would be something to take up with the News mods, all I can explain is why we don't allow them in the groups I mod.
News may have similar opinions or they may have their own ideas. I haven't talked with them about it.
Yeah I don't blame you for the specific rules in News, I feel like the main point of disagreement we had was your reasoning for not allowing substack articles doesn't really make sense to me. But regardless, we were definitely speaking past each other somewhat, so sorry about that.
It's all good. My personal beef with Substack is that literally anyone can do one. I have better things to do with my time than personally vet each and every Substack blog, keep a list of who's been naughty and who's been nice and share that with all the other mods. That's why we just go "Yeah, Substack? No." Same if it were Medium, or Blogger, or X or Youtube or Reddit.
If it's a real news story, there will be (eventually) a real news article to link to, as happened here.
Let's say RFK Jr. sets up a Substack about how vaccines are all causing brain damage. That would be removed as well, we don't even have to bother debunking it, just being on a source that has no vetting is enough.
My rebuttal to that is what if he set up a news website instead? Like I said in a previous message it's not that hard to make a fake news site. It has a higher barrier to entry sure, but not one that's impossible, anyone with a moderate amount of web design skills or like 50 bucks and access to fiverr could probably get one built for them.
In that case you'd get an article from it posted, read it/read the about us page, probably Google the name/authors name, and see that it's non-existent and remove it. With substack the process is really the exact same, so banning substack specifically just feels arbitrary.
Also, specific sites known for extreme bias or disinformation are already banned right? So why isn't substack handled the same way? There aren't that many independent journalists on Substack people would be posting, I can think of like 2 or 3 sites I've seen. Any opinion piece would be banned for being an opinion piece anyway, regardless of where it was posted from originally, substack or otherwise.
Plus with these substack blogs, it's not even something you can enforce without opening the article to see its on substack anyway. The URL for the ones ran by independent journalists don't have any reference to substack in them, so you need to open it up and look at the site, which at that point taking an extra 15 seconds to check if it's reliable isn't that much more effort. And if you don't need to open it because you recognize the URL, then you should also know whether that URL is for an actual journalist or someone spreading misinformation.
Basically it just feels like substack sites aren't a unique problem that doesn't also exist with "regular" websites which may or may not have misinformation or extreme bias.
If it were an actual news site with actual reporting? Sure, I'd allow that because to do that WELL there would have to be some level of fact checking, accountability, etc. etc. Naturally there are exceptions to that (cough) OANN, Breitbart, NewsMax, whatever passes for the Weekly World News these days.
Man, I love me some Bat-Boy, but not all news is created equally. :)
We don't allow ALL news sources, there are truly awful ones. Check out this one I removed from Politics the other day:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/dnyuz/
"DNyuz is an Armenian website that plagiarizes content word for word from major news sources. They literally copy and paste entire articles and embed their advertising code for profit. As one can imagine, a source like this completely lacks transparency as there is zero information to be found about authors, owners, location, or mission.
Since November 2019, the Drudge Report has been linking to this website presumably to bypass paywalls on major news sources such as the New York Times. According to a Buzzfeed report, Dnyuz was founded and is run by “Hayk Karapetyan, a web developer living in Armenia.” They further report that Drudge has driven 8 million page views to DNyuz from November 2019 through May 2020."
I mean a news site that doesn't actually exist, full of fake articles, or just opinion pieces, or AI generated garbage, or straight up lies meant to trick people.
What's the difference between that and a random substack blog with the same type of content? Presumably neither would be allowed, so why is the fact that one is substack based relevant? Either way it's full of lies or opinions, and doesn't constitute a reliable source for a post.
And if it did have actual reporting, same question. Why does the fact that the reporting was published via substack make it not allowed? The quality of the information is the same either way.
The fact that you have a list of non-allowed sites is kind of my point. You still need to verify when a new site is posted you aren't familiar with, or if someone is trying to post misinformation via a site like Breitbart you recognize it and remove it.
So no matter what you need to spend the effort to moderate the sources posted. Why is substack banned in that case? Even without substack being allowed you gave me a list of multiple sites you (rightfully) don't allow, as well as a site you only just learned about and banned the other day. So why would substack change anything in that case? Looking through the mod log substack links aren't posted very often so it wouldn't really be that much of an increase in effort, and just gets rid of potentially valid sources of news for no real reason.
Substack isn't allowed because there's no way to vet each individual blog and because it is a blog site, there is no inherent accountability like there are with proper news sites.
With a proper news site there are services like Media Bias Fact Check and others that will provide a deeper insight as to who runs the joint, what their agenda is (if any), if they've failed fact checks, and so on and so on.
Subatack is a lot like Facebook or X in that anyone can post anything and maybe they're reliable, maybe they aren't, but we can't check every single blog out there.
I get that the rule seems harsh, but it's kind of like liquor stores that say "We ID anyone under 30." It just makes the policy easier to enforce.
Again though, my point is if I wanted to push a political agenda, and do so in a way that would be time consuming to verify, I could do so by making/buying an HTML and CSS template, buying a couple domains for pretty cheap, getting chat-gpt to write me some fake articles to add content to the site, and then posting them as sources in something like Politics.
If I did that, the way to verify would be looking up the authors name, and seeing if it makes sense. Either the author won't exist online and then you can remove it to be safe, or they will but they don't work at "HDR News", or "HDR News" won't turn up in any other results because it's made up.
There isn't any inherent accountability to any website, it's very easy to buy a domain and host a static site for free, and like I said, the barrier to entry is higher sure, but if someone wanted to do a disinformation campaign successfully they'd be better off pretending to be a real news website and not a blog anyway.
If instead someone posts a substack blog that's just an opinion piece, it would be fairly easy to see that, just by opening the link and looking, the same as if someone posted a NYT opinion piece. How many news sites post editorials or opinions that you don't want as a source too? Again, looking at the modlog those seem to be removed about as frequently as people post any substack article, opinion or otherwise.
And yeah, you can't have a list of every single substack blog to reference/memorize, but you honestly can't do that with websites either, since like I already said it's not hard to buy a domain and host a misinformation news site.
The analogy you gave with "we ID anyone under 30" also doesn't really fit. By outright banning substack its more like "We don't serve anyone under 30." In order to be what you said, the rule would have to be something like "substack is allowed but has a stricter standard required to be accepted as a source", which I think would be very fair.
If this were something like tumblr, then yeah obviously it shouldn't be accepted as a source. But since multiple reliable journalists do use substack as their host, it's a lot less justifiable to outright ban it. All that does is lead to a bias towards corporate media which can afford web developers and hosting costs, and away from small, independent journalists that may be willing to report something that doesn't get as much coverage, or gets biased coverage, by other, larger sources.
Oh, the Russians do that all the time and get rumbled for it, because news sites have an accountability level that blog sites do not.
See:
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/06/g-s1-2965/russia-propaganda-deepfakes-sham-websites-social-media-ukraine
https://www.cybercom.mil/Media/News/Article/3895345/russian-disinformation-campaign-doppelgnger-unmasked-a-web-of-deception/
Exactly, so if one of those articles was posted, how would you tell it was disinformation? You'd look at the article, see the name of the outlet/website, Google it, and it would either pop up with results saying it's a Russian disinformation campaign, or would have no results online if it was new since it was just created and hasn't been reported on.
Now imagine the same scenario, but it's a link to a substack based article. In order to check if it was disinfirmation, you'd look up the name of the outlet it claims to be, and it would either pop up with results about it being misninformation or have no results about it online.
In either case the effort to check if it's disinfo is basically identical and the same amount of effort.
If instead of straight up disinfo you're worried about too many blogs being posted that aren't news, then all you'd need to do to check if it was news or not was just read a bit of the linked article, same as if you wanted to check if a random NYT article, for example, was an opinion piece or not.
So again, my real question is what about substack specifically makes the actual process of moderation more difficult?
If a substack article is posted it's not too hard to verify if it's legit, and you can even be more strict about what constitutes a valid substack link compared to what constitutes a valid "regular" news link, which I think makes sense to do. The number of substack articles posted doesn't really seem like an issue either, since like I said barely any seem to be posted and removed each week. And either way if a substack blog is posted you either need to know and recognize the URL, which at that point you should also know whether the URL is for a blog or actual reporting that just happens to use substack, or if you don't know the URL you need to open the link to check anyway, so why not spend maybe an extra minute to see if it's legit first?
In most cases, it's easy enough to spot the disinfo with a simple google search or a domain registry check.
We had one in World that was an African news site, and my initial reaction was "Oh, cool, we don't have enough African representation!"
But then looking at it, it was a TOTAL cipher. No history, nobody linking to it, nothing.
But the weird part was, the news DID check out, it was legit, verifable reporting.
It was only when I searched exact phrases that I saw they were just copy/pasting from other news sites with zero attribution.
But again that's my point. The amount of effort you had to put into determining whether the news source was valid was fairly high the case of the African news site. But if that was published on substack instead, the amount of effort would be the exact same, you'd still need to look up the site and see that it had no history. You'd need to look up the phrases, and see that they were copy pasted from other articles. Nothing about that site would have been any different in terms of moderation if it were substack based instead.
And like you said, in most cases it's easy enough to spot disinfo with a google search or two, or checking the domain. But that would be true with substack too, you could to the exact same check you do for those sites for substack ones. Something like kenklippenstein.com is a unique domain, and should check out in the domain registry if you check. And if you google his name, his wikipedia article will show up and confirm he is a reputable independent journalist who posts on his substack page.
So if you're willing to expend that effort on moderating other sites, blocking substack specifically is nonsensical imo. You've already admitted the amount of work you're willing to put into verifying news sites which were previously unknown to you is fairly high, which is good. I respect the fact that you want to thoroughly investigate a site before declaring it unreliable. But if the acceptable amount of work is already such a high threshold, why is substack different?
Whether an article is on substack or not the process of checking it is the same. You can do a domain registry check, you can google the author and the name of the publication, you can copy segments from the article into google to see if they're stolen. Nothing about the article being published on substack changes the moderation workload compared to any other site.
Like I said, my core question is what about substack specifically makes the actual process of moderation more difficult? That's the part I don't understand about your reasoning behind the ban. All of the examples of moderation you've given me so far just seem to reinforce my argument, that substack being banned is illogical, and choosing to allow it would not have a noticeable effect on moderation while allowing a wider variety of sources and independent journalists to be shared.
He was a News mod, as well as mod of many other .world instances which he now is not, on his profile when I made the original comment that incited this chain of comments.
I checked before posting, so as to actually make an accurate critique.
I did not take a screenshot because I did not think that such a thing would be necessary, but apparently this guy is a reddit/discord tier gaslighter.
Maybe if someone updated the TOS over there it would all make much more sense.
Bruh. Everyone sees you for who you really are. Stop acting like they don’t.
A mod who enforces the rules... I know, I know, kids hate this one restrictive trick!
Jesus fucking shit bro. Do you see that part of the other posters comment that I helpfully quoted for you?
Go back and read what’s in the quote inset again, then address it. Or you can just keeping playing this coy, smug, shit licking game that literally everyone can see straight through I guess. You’re not clever my dude, you’re a fucking hollow, empty, sad, pathetic person.
Even if world allowed Substack, which it doesn't, it STILL would have been removed for being internal US news, not world news.
See each community has a thing called a "Sidebar" that explain the rules for the community, you might try actually reading them sometime.
Here, I'll make it super easy for you:
Still not clear? How about now?
That's not the community I posted it to, I posted it to News, since I know it's US specific and I don't want to flood world news with USA stuff since that's already way too common online.
You posted this whole fucking thing, got so hot and bothered that you took fucking screenshots and marked them up with “arrows”, and you didn’t even realize that this whole time the OP here said NEWS not WORLD NEWS, you insipid fool.
Between myself and the other person you’ve seen NEWS by itself mentioned like 15 times. The only person that’s ever mentioned WORLD NEWS is yourself. Do you actually consider yourself to be a serious person, because my god man you come across as everything but.
Hmm... I guess I need to use smaller words just for you:
Me not news mod.
Me can speak for Politics and World.
Me can no speak for News.
Me explain mod rules for Politics and World.
News has own rules.
News rules not my rules.
News does their thing, Politics and World do their thing.
Two things not same thing.
News can do things Politics and World don't.
Politics and world do things News doesn't.
If that's not good enough I can see if I can round up a below average 6 year old to explain it to you.
Oh fuck chat guess I’m cooked.
For real though, I’m sorry for whatever’s going (or not going) on in your life that’s led to you behaving like this online.
This entire thread started because I responded to this comment:
"You're really having this conversation here...
... while simultaneously being part of the mod team that bans this source and topic in all the .world instances you moderate?"
See that bit at the end? ALL THE INSTANCES I MODERATE.
Primarily, that means Politics and World. There are other tiny ones nobody but me and maybe 1 or 2, maybe as many as 5 care about.
You're the one insisting I address community I DO NOT MODERATE.
So while I can speak authoritatively about what I mod, I can't speak to News.
Me: Well, here's why we banned it in Politics and World...
You: HOW DARE YOU NOT TALK ABOUT NEWS!!!
Well, that's not the question I was asked. I was asked about the ones I moderate.
Here, come back after you have someone explain this to you:
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/nearly-half-of-teenagers-globally-cannot-read-with-comprehension
Go off king.
I think you’re putting in more effort here than these folks deserve 😂 Regardless of how much I like or dislike the rules of those particular .world communities, I understand them, and I understand why they are the way that they are.
That's not really my issue though. I don't care about following the rules, it's fine my post technically might have broke the current rules, so it got removed because of it, whatever. It's just weird that substack isn't actually listed as being banned anywhere, the closest rule is rule 6, but I don't think that this article should be classified as: "No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed," when it's not any of those. That plus the fact that other substack blogs have been posted as articles with no issue, and that the article which is now up only cites Klippenstein as where they got the info from just feels inconsistent. Like if Klippenstein is considered unreliable, then fine, I'd disagree but it wouldn't be worth fighting over. But if that was the case then why is the gizmodo article not unreliable, if it's based on an unreliable source? And if it's specifically substack that's an issue, why? And if so why are other substack articles posted there and kept up, including a different article from Klippersteins substack? I really just want it clarified if substack is banned, or klipperstein is banned, or both, or neither, and not have it be entirely up to the judgement of a given mod for a given article whether to enforce it, since that could lead to biased removals.