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 '.
The rule should be about where it is posted if that is the important part.
All the other sites copied it from drop site news; personally I’m ok with a mirror as long as the content is not altered
The rule is explicit: News Articles Only.
Blogs aren’t news articles.
This is an article, by a news org. Highly trusted. With editors, with their own hosting… But they use the tech stack that other blogs use? What if I told you many reputable news sources uses blog tech stacks?
Then it shouldn’t be on a blog site. ;)
But how is it on a blog site? I still don’t understand the last leap of logic in your chain of thought. When confronted, you reiterate that it is a blog, even though you know it is an article from a reputable news organisation, then you say but it’s on a blog site, when it is not, then you loop back. It’s not a blog, not on a blog site, it’s domain is not a blog domain. What makes it a blog exactly?
A blog site is a host of personal opinion. It’s an online diary. Some of it is interesting and useful, most of it is not, none of it is journalism or news.
If a journalist is sharing space with blogs, we aren’t going to allow any of it, because we aren’t going through every fucking author going “is this one valid? What about this guy talking about how their dog just took a dump? How about this guy convinced robots are stealing his luggage?”
Same reason we don’t allow bullshit social media like Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc.
There’s too much content to say what’s valid for the community and what’s not.
Does the New York Times have a Twitter account? Sure. Do we allow it? No, because fuck you Twitter. Does the Washington Post have a Facebook account? Sure. Do we allow it? No, because fucking Facebook.
The same goes for Substack, Blogger, Blogsite, etc. We don’t care who is doing the writing. It’s not a valid source.
Yeah, I get that point and agree totally. But the question is that this one, that is validated. That has been gone through. That you obviously have now the choice and loop back again. Why in his case do you loop back to “it is a blog” when you know now it isn’t? Then when asked swap back to argument 1?
Because, as stated now for the zillionth time, we are’t going to go through each account hosted on a blog site picking winners and losers.
I just had this discussion in PMs… AGAIN… over a removed Twitter post.
“But, but… MY link is legitimate!”
Yeah, don’t care. We don’t allow Twitter links, find a DIFFERENT link or GTFO.
I get it, I really do. I’m personally embroiled in the whole Myanmar earthquake thing, I’ve been sent a bunch of heartbreaking content from people I know over there.
I’m not posting it because the sources are all Facebook (which is HUGE over there), YouTube, and individual images sent to me by people on the ground, people I know personally (family of my daughter in law.)
It’s FINE to put in a comment, we don’t allow it as a top level post.
Photos from Naypyidaw:
❤️