29
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
29 points (57.2% liked)
Fediverse
28008 readers
435 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
How many articles by how many authors since the beginning of the war need to be posted before you would regard the site as knowingly pushing Russian propaganda?
How do you distinguish between opinion and propaganda? Its entirely credible that Pepe Escobar sincerely believes the positions he holds.
Should the corpus of every news source that includes opinion pieces that serve the interests of a war criminal state be banned?
Oh, so if he sincerely believes in genocide, it's fine.
If they continuously make naked apologia for that war criminal state's war crimes, especially ongoing ones, and parrot the propaganda points pushed by that state which clearly and directly contradict reality, yes, absolutely.
By that logic, the NY Times should be banned as a source. They're opinion section is chocked full of basically the pro US point of view and defending Israel (including a memo advocating genocide denial). One-sided coverage, poorly sourced, nakedly biased, it all applies to them, too.
Allowing sources from all points of view, as long as the facts are true, seems better than picking and choosing due to bias. Even these "centrist" institutions have their own biases.
Regardless of our conflict, we can agree that Pepe Escobar is a shithead.
There's an old joke that goes:
My concern is that the criteria you are using to justify banning The Cradle would also ban most United States media as well. I value the principle of a free press, and what you're proposing is inconsistent with those values. It's easy to call for the ban of information that disagrees with us, but unless we develop a more nuanced approach to combating propaganda, we risk replicating the values of the authoritarian systems we oppose.
My point is just that banning The Cradle is not inherently an illegitimate move. You may not agree with it, and I honestly wouldn't see the point unless someone was spamming The Cradle's articles or editorials, but it is a legitimate point to consider that they carry water for Russian propaganda, and in allowing that source, misinformation multiplies and makes the mods' jobs harder.
A appreciate your work demonstrating The Cradle's support for the Russian state. It's the first time I can remember seeing The Cradle posted on here, and in between being subscribed to these communities and my contributions to LemmyWorldDefenseHQ, I have not seen The Cradle spam as a reported or observed problem.
I've read the article, and I find it valuable. I'm alarmed that the Lemmy World !politics and !news mods have failed to demonstrate the pressing need for the ham-fisted gatekeeping and censorship regime they've implemented.
Lemmy.World is the largest instance, and !politics and !news are flagship communities. I would like to see the Fediverse overtake corporate forums, and learning to approach the spectrum of journalistic credibility with nuance is an essential feature of a better version of social media.