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 '.
Yes, as I stated previously, we aren’t engaging in “buh buh you allowed that OTHER link, why not miiiiiine?” Blog sites aren’t allowed, full stop.
You are already banning certain websites and not allowing others at the discretion of a rating system operated by a Zionist. MBFC is rated by Wikipedia as unreliable source. Yet this does not seem to bother your “factuality”.
There are not a thousand independent journalists and news outlets popping up on Substack and people keep posting different ones. There only a handful actual journalists on there not writing opinion articles but doing real reporting.
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.
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.
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.