I posted this article on c/politics and it was quickly taken down by mods. I was informed that the reason was

Rule 1, no social media or blogs

However, c/politics rule 1 states:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

I am curious if all substack articles are removed from that community, or just ones that the moderators disagree with.

  • JuBe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 days ago

    @[email protected] I’m a mod on c/politics. I don’t speak for any of the other mods, and while I don’t recall interacting with your specific post, I’ll give you two reasons today that would likely be sufficient to me, for why I would have removed that post. (1) It’s an article to a Substack post, which isn’t necessarily dispositive, but the author is unknown (at least to me), which is a ding against its credibility. (2) I don’t know enough about the author’s intent to know whether to characterize the article as mis- or dis-information, but I’ve been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect. Specifically, the author demonstrates ignorance of the technology and logistics involved in the administration of elections, along with different methods of verification.

    And just to be clear, the 2024 election was not perfect and there was institutionalized voter suppression; however, that Substack post is not rooted in fact.

    • andros_rex@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      I’ve been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect.

      This seems to be stating that we must accept what you say at face value without evidence.

      • JuBe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        Okay, well here are some facts that you can confirm with anyone else who has been involved in election administration that support my point:

        • The individual or group of individuals involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
        • The technology involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
        • The article completely skips over addressing how any of these changes wouldn’t be caught during count verification steps.

        Those are three things undermining the article’s credibility that you can confirm for yourself. It’s spewing the same kind of bullshit theories that I heard about the 2020 election, and spent the years since, fighting. I didn’t like the outcome of the 2024 election either, but I know what I’m talking about.