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.
You must log in or register to comment.
This has come up before. The mods do not consider substack to be journalistic. They typically remove all posts that link to it.
Yeah if you check [email protected], the politics of lemmy.world mods consider Substack, a software method of content hosting, blogs. But not Wordpress, even though it is the same method of hosting content and is neutral to the content being used for it.
If Fox News used Wordpress, it’s allowed to be posted. If NPR used Substack, they’d remove it. It’s backwards methods of determining fake news/accuracy.
Fox is removed on general principle. :)
That’s fair enough
@[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.
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.
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.
The “Basic Rules” post has only been stickied to the top of the group since the election:
These are not the same as the rules listed in the sidebar, which I read and do not mention substack.
I was not aware that I would need to read two separate sets of rules to be aware of what was allowed in that community. Perhaps those rules should also be in the sidebar?
The sticky is a simplified list since people were not reading or comprehending the side-bar. Even with the sticky up, we STILL remove a bunch of trash posts. Images, videos, and yes, Substack.
Perhaps you should ask them.
I have, I don’t expect a response.
They took down a video that was from a news outlet I posted several months ago and received no response when I asked them.
I see. If they don’t answer(unless they’re just terribly overrun with contact), I would say it leans toward removing something that doesn’t fit their agenda.
I can’t speak for the other mods in Politics, but they did not reach out to me. This is the first I’m hearing of it.
Thanks for the explanation, fwiw
Video links are not allowed in Politics, World, or News.
Why would a news video be not allowed? Why would it not be acceptable to post a video by a news outlet?
Videos have no accountability, anyone can post up a YouTube video.
These communities specifically state to post articles only. Videos are not articles.
What about videos by news outlets. Eg, the official channel for a local news outlet? Why would that be different than an article?
No. No videos. We aren’t going through video by video picking winners and losers.
Same for Twitter links, same for blog posts.
So despite coming from the same source and containing the same content, this is unacceptable but this is allowed.
I guess you are free to run your own community in whatever arbitrary and silly way you like. You might consider consolidating your rules - it would probably be a good idea to make sure that the rules on your sidebar are the same as the rules in your pinned post.
Which news outlet was it and what was the video about?
