Context:
The article in question was well sourced, factually accurate, and written by a well-renowned author and journalist whose work appears elsewhere too, regardless of which outlet published it.
Nonetheless, Jordan Lund is once again blindly trusting a pro-zionist conservative outlet masquerading as a bias and fact checker that nothing from anywhere that criticizes the fascist apartheid regime can be reliable 🤦
Yeah you’ve said that a lot but I know what I saw. Dozens minimum were routinely saying things like “this troll hasn’t been banned yet? Wtf?! They are a super obvious troll”
Any discussion that discounted that was not a good one . If you got made the fall guy, that sucks but from the user perspective, you defended an obvious troll.
We don’t moderate based on fee fees. We moderate on rule breaking behavior. UM was right on the line, until he wasn’t.
But this is besides the point here of removing posts from shitty sources, which Monk also was not doing.
You can ignore the point about everyone thinking they are a troll, which breaks rules, but it stands.
What “everyone thinks” doesn’t enter into it without evidence. The majority of voters thought Trump would make a fine President in the last election. In a lot of cases “most people” are wrong.
Funny you should mention that. Disinformation campaigns disseminated by trolls from around the world are partially responsible for that.
“What everyone thinks” certainly should matter. If everyone is saying it’s a troll, it’s probably been clear for a while that it’s a troll. The evidence was overwhelming. Pretending it was absent proves my point.
You’re totally wrong. Plus off topic. I had nothing to do with OP’s situation and I’m not the mod in question. :)