Since yesterday, Jordanlund is continuing to remove reporting like that from the reputed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_Site_News (article depicted in the screenshot is https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/israeli-spy-yoni-koren-stayed-jeffrey-epstein-apartment-ehud-barak) just for being hosted with substack. He is now moderating World News and Politics at lemmy.world.

Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don’t allow those links either.

goodness, that is not the point. That means these outlets post to their own website while also reposting the thing on twitter. In so many cases, their own website uses substack/wordpress! For example, https://time.com/ is the official website of Time magazine, as in the publisher of Time Person of the Year. It uses WordPress, as you can see by going to https://time.com/wp-admin/.

If he wants to target blogspam, he should be targeting things like The Daily Beast and https://www.utubepublisher.in/, which use none of the technologies he’s targeting. This ban on CMS technology is arbitrary and does not prevent poor publishing that simply registers a domain, as anyone may register a domain.

  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
    93·
    8 days ago

    Fair point. I’d use the same arguments about web building platforms, though. Al Jazeera uses WordPress.com, the web building platform not the software. Jordanlund has removed sites for being hosted by WordPress before IIRC.

    (IMO Substack might unfortunately be the lesser evil: Medium doesn’t compensate writers nearly as much, Blogger is owned by Google, and WordPress.com is pricier and waging an ego contest under Matt Mullenweg.)

    • Blaze@lazysoci.alEnglish
      91·
      8 days ago

      Jordanlund has removed sites for being hosted by WordPress before IIRC.

      Do you have any examples of this?

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        13·
        4 days ago

        IIRC I have removed Wordpress links but not because they are Wordpress. There have been other removable issues with them. I can’t think of a specific example.

        One rule in !world [email protected] that is squishier than I would like is:

        “Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.”

        I lean heavily on “MAY”, it’s not that opinion articles are 100% removed, they MAY be removed. Mods discretion.

        I get a lot of reports of “Opinion”, I look at it and go “Yeah, but that’s a salient point” and leave it alone.

        If the ‘opinion’ is “Ukrainians are Nazis” or “The Uyghur genocide is not a genocide” that shit is going to get removed with a quickness.