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 '.
Again, show me where MBFC says something is Questionable when they are not. This is the second time I’m asking you.
Also this one which really shows how Zionist the MBFC authors are.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mondoweiss/
Don’t care. Show me where a source they mark “Questionable” is not, in fact, Questionable.
Mondoweiss – Bias and Credibility
Mondoweiss is a trash source, try again.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondoweiss
In 2015, David Bernstein, writing for The Washington Post, called the website a “hate site”, and listed quotes from Weiss that he said were anti-Semitic. This included Weiss’ claim that “the Israel lobby … reflected a contract the American establishment had made with Jews to drive the economy in the 1970s”,[62] which Bernstein likened to a belief in an “Elders of Zion type group”. It was also described as a hate site in the book Anti-Zionism on Campus by Andrew Pessin.[63]
According to Elliot Kaufman, the Vice President of Cardinal for Israel, a Stanford University group, writing in The Stanford Review, Mondoweiss “often publishes astonishingly anti-Semitic material, using classic anti-Semitic imagery such as depicting Jews as spiders, cockroaches, or octopuses with tentacles controlling others, and Holocaust inversion. Its hatred of Israel is as deep as it is vicious.”[64]
Your argument is a Zionist writer writing for a Zionist rag calling anti Zionist Jews antisemitic?
It is clear you are not here in good faith. I will keep in mind you deem all criticism of Israel antisemitic.
No, I’m saying we aren’t going to link to a hate site, and any site depicting Jews as spiders, cockroaches, or octopus is a hate site. Mondoweiss is a hate site. MBFC has it right, if you think they’re wrong, then you might have your own bias issue to confront.
Where is your evidence? Show me the comic. Or are you going to point to Zionist hearsay blogs as your evidence?
For the sake of it, I followed the sources
The links to the blog posts don’t work
Or you just admit you’re supporting an acknowledged hate site. I’m not engaging in your sea lioning. If you want it, go find it yourself. I’m not digging through hate material for you.
Like theguardian? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
A UK paper of record?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian
Or mixed not enough for you
Guardian isn’t “Questionable”.
“MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY”
We’d allow that.
Which makes it dumber that dropsite is banned as it has a higher rating
Dropsite isn’t banned because of credibility, it’s banned because we don’t allow blogs. Full stop.
You could be the most award winning journalist in the world on Twitter or Facebook, you’re still getting removed because we don’t allow Twitter or Facebook.
Again it’s not a blog it’s a news organization
This entire post is trying to show you 2 things.
1 just add it to the rules that anything hosted on substack is banned for simply using a tech platform.
2 it’s a ridiculously stupid rule that isn’t at all thought out.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drop-site-news-bias-and-credibility/
Irrelevant as they are a blog site and we do not allow blog sites.
But you’re continuing to dodge the question, as usual. Your argument is MBFC can’t be relied on. Show me an example of them being unreliable.
Specifically, identify a source they say we should remove that we should actually be keeping. 3rd time asking.
They’re either incredibly biased or they aren’t. If they are incredibly biased you should be able to prove that in short order.
If you CAN’T prove that, and it sure seems like you can’t, then it’s long past time you STFU about MBFC.
Define the term blog site.
You act like there is not an established definition:
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/weblog
“A blog, short for weblog, is a frequently updated web page used for personal commentary or business content.”
The key point there, for me, is “personal commentary”. That’s not news, that’s not journalism. It’s uniquely distinguished from actual reporting.
So Dropsite writes personal commentary and is not an organisation employing multiple journalists. Correct?
Dropsite is hosted on a blogging platform that fails to differentiate personal commentary from anything else and as such, yes, we block that entire blogging platform.
If they aren’t going to differentiate, then we aren’t either.
“But, but, real journalists on Twitter…”
Don’t care. Twitter isn’t a source either.
Comparing a news organisation with a domain name which solely uses Substack for layout and a subscription model to Twitter is complete nonsense. Are there Twitter accounts with their own “MBFC rating”?
Your arguments are akin to claiming that wordpress websites are not real websites. It is pure gatekeeping and the fact that you even have to go against your own MBFC standards to enfore rules pulled out of thin air really shows you are grasping at straws here.
Wordpress sites are obviously real websites, but they aren’t news articles.
If you don’t like it, feel free to fire up your own community and enjoy all the blogspam that gets posted. (There’s a lot!)