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 '.
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.
Comparing a news organisation with a domain name which solely uses Substack for layout and a subscription model to Twitter is complete nonsense. Are there Twitter accounts with their own “MBFC rating”?
Your arguments are akin to claiming that wordpress websites are not real websites. It is pure gatekeeping and the fact that you even have to go against your own MBFC standards to enfore rules pulled out of thin air really shows you are grasping at straws here.
Wordpress sites are obviously real websites, but they aren’t news articles.
If you don’t like it, feel free to fire up your own community and enjoy all the blogspam that gets posted. (There’s a lot!)
News sites publish their content using WordPress. Similar to how news sites now host their content using SubStack. It allows journalists to do journalism instead of webdevelopment.
This used to be a big gatekeeping thing back in the day, with people claiming that WordPress websites are not real websites.
I will take up your suggestion about creating an alternative community as you are only doubling down on your nonexistent rules.