My post got removed despite it being from a reliable source (Ukrayinska Pravda- Media Bias/ Fact check.)
I am not looking to participate in a community where mods remove posts based on their feelings about the source, there needs to be a proof to the mod claim.
Why did my post got removed in this case?
How is the source unreliable, what is the mod proof for that?
You must log in or # to comment.
That removal was bullshit IMO. I was puzzled and thought OP removed it himself, when it suddenly disappeared.
I’m honestly shocked that a mod removed it, apparently based on nothing but personal prejudice.Edit for clarity:
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/ is one of the best sources we have for what’s going on in Ukraine. And in my experience it is highly reliable.Honestly, I still think he saw “Pravda” and thought it was the state-run Russian Pravda and made his decision off that - and has been rationalizing all that ever since rather than admit a mistake. Look at what he commented on the deleted post:
Usually he is OK, I have no idea what got into him?
Yeah, thought the same. That’s partly why I bothered to try and explain what was going on - it seemed out of character.
I think in these situations it’s best to message the mods directly rather than the community.
Welcome to the internet. IDK about the mods of this community specifically but generally there is no accountability.
Just leaving this here https://lemmy.world/post/20121030
deleted by creator
The facebook post is from the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which is credible in this case and the article is making it clear about the source of their numbers.
Why is credible the Armed Forces of Ukraine? Their main interest is win a war, not to provide reliable information to the public.
What source is more credible than them to provide the casualties stats?
Obviously, the Russian Army is who has the info about the Russian casualties, and the Ukrainian Army has the information about the Ukrainian casualties. And both are not credible sources.
I don’t say that the articles using their publicized numbers of the casualties of the other country should be banned. Only those articles, without context about the numbers or the war, have no journalistic value.
They have been shown by many agencies to be credible, Both the British ministry of defense and Pentagon have posted numbers on occasion that are not far off.
Being a governing body of a party involved, their claims are newsworthy regardless of credibility. They are a primary source. If russia posted numbers I would say the same thing if only to have something to laugh at. Whether the info is credible is secondary.
I’ve seen video of a general reporting to Putin, where he claimed they had destroyed 50 Ukrainian tanks in 1 battle!
Russian numbers are so obviously fake, question is if this really were the numbers they gave Putin?
But still if Russia post numbers, they are news, because we would try to interpret what the meaning of even posting false numbers is.
I think it’s because of their charged wording:
Under this criteria (using loaded words) most posts here should be removed, I always look for news outlets that publish boring titles, but simply that is very rare that the community will be empty if it was really applied.
Recent example in this community is NYT:
That’s a general description of left-center sources, so that would mean banning this list https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/leftcenter/
Just scrolling through I found nytimes.com there, so that seems excessive?
oh yeah you’re right. I dunno why it was removed then. Best DM mods as to why, or see where this post goes.
still, you should aim for higher credibility ratings.
Hmm, that’s a good point.
It seems that this was reported by multiple other credible news sources, for example:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-loses-1-400-soldiers-045129405.html
Apparently, the credibility rating is high? Do they have a higher credibility rating? I haven’t checked, but I’d imagine “high” was high enough to at least post it and let people make their own opinions. For the record, CNN, The New York Yimes, and The Washington Post have the same credibility rating as the site listed above.
That does seem quite a bit odd if that’s the explanation though. After all, Propublica is left-center as well according to them: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/propublica/
But mods have allowed Propublica articles in the past, e.g https://lemmy.world/post/15997425 and https://lemmy.world/post/5540207
So why would Propublica get a pass despite being left center?
Yes, for sure we can’t have charged wording here.
You may be right, but it’s still complete bullshit.
Pravda, citing numbers found on Facebook, which have NOT been confirmed by anyone is NOT a trustworthy source on anything related to Russia or Ukraine. Full stop.
I should remove this post as well as we don’t allow meta posts, but I’ll allow it in the interests of transparency.
Honestly what the fuck jordanlund? These numbers are the official numbers from the Ukanian ministry of defense:
https://www.mil.gov.ua/en/news/2024/09/24/the-estimated-combat-losses-of-russians-over-the-last-day-1400-persons-61-artillery-systems-3-anti-aircraft-systems/You do good work as moderator, but this is a mistake, and you should change it.
Read the post again:
“The information is being confirmed.”
None of this is “official”.
Wow this is really sad by you, how can it be more official than coming from a government body?
In Ukrainian:
https://www.mil.gov.ua/news/2024/09/24/zagalni-bojovi-vtrati-rosiyan-za-dobu-1400-osib-61-artsistema-ta-3-zasobi-ppo/That 2nd to last line is translated a little bit differently. And all it means is that the data is updated every day as new info arrives.
What’s your problem with that? War is chaos, to claim that the numbers are final would be obviously dishonest.To claim it’s not official is outright …, yeah I better stop myself here, but I can’t stress enough how disappointed I am in your handling of this situation.
By being an official press release, not a Facebook post.
Anyone saying “Well, I saw it on Facebook” is about as reliable as “Well, someone told me on the telephone.”
If the numbers are actually confirmed? By all means, re-post it.
Please jordanlund, it is an official press release on Facebook!! They do it on Facebook and Telegram, and the ministry of defense is now again posting on their homepage again, after a ½ year pause after an attack on Kyiv.
So for a period Facebook and Telegram were actually the only places to get them!Many do this on Facebook or Xitter, Harris confirmed her run for the presidency on Xitter!!! Are you claiming her announcement to run wasn’t official?
This is no different. I don’t like it either, because those sites are inherently not secure, but that’s the world we live in.Incidentally When Harris announced that on Xitter it was allowed AFAIK without any questions from any moderators.
Edit PS:
You are moving the goal post!! Just in case you didn’t notice.Then why does Pravda say it’s unconfirmed? 🤔
Again, nothing about this is “official”.
Found the source again, and you are decidedly lying!!
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/24/7476472/
They write the information is being confirmed, and it’s a translation problem. That means it’s being updated.
It’s 100% normal military procedure, to confirm/update any incoming information as new information arrives. These people are NOT native english speakers.You are being an asshole. And you are arguing from ignorance.
Now you’re just being intentionally obtuse:
Official Ministry of Defence page with the same numbers:
“Data are being updated.”
Obviously a rough English translation and more precisely should probably be “Data subject to change” or “Data continues to be collected”.
Just like any military stats are reported across the world.
You are hereby reported.
Honestly WTF?, please state your source, because I can’t find the link to it, because you removed it!!!
I AM SO CLOSE TO BLOCKING YOU NOW; YOU ARE BEING INCREDIBLY IRRATIONAL!!
Come to think of it, I think I’ll report you.
Asking just because you didn’t specify - you realize the source was Ukrainska Pravda (privately owned, not state-run) and not Russian Communist Party owned one? And that the Facebook post was from official account of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine?
I do realize, feel free to read the actual article here:
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/24/7476472/
“Source: General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on Facebook”
The Source isn’t Pravda, the source is a Facebook post. Yes, I removed it, no, I’m not apologizing for it.
You’re being overtly combative when I was merely asking for a clarification on your understanding to ensure there wasn’t a miscommunication.
As I stated in another comment, the source isn’t just “a Facebook post” it’s from the verified and official account of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine https://www.facebook.com/share/p/3n2sU1rSuebWeFp4/?mibextid=WC7FNe
As a mod, is it really your job to second guess sources cited within articles from reputable news sources? Would you have removed the article if it came from the New York Times?
I greatly respect the amount of work you mods have to do, and understand that it can be incredibly difficult - but from the outside it looks like you saw “Pravda”, assumed it was the Russian Pravda, and deleted the post based on that. I’m not saying that’s what happened, but that’s easily an interpretation someone could arrive at looking from the outside.
When someone reports a comment and the entire post looks fishy? Yes, that’s exactly what moderators do and we do it literally every day.
IDK why you find the post fishy. These numbers are posted every day on !ukraine@sopuli.xyz.
The top sub on lemmy to follow the Ukraine war.That’s a strawman. We’re not talking about comments. We’re talking about why you removed a post from a reputable source. You’ve said because it was 1) from Pravda (apparently not realizing all Pravda’s are not the same); and 2) because the article used a FB post as a source.
Just to do a baseline reset here - can we agree that the news article linked to was from a news organization that is generally regarded as reliable, including by the MBFC source your own bot uses? And can we agree that the Facebook post linked to was from the official and verified account of the Ukrainian forces? And that it matches both their website data and other verified social media posts?
The Source isn’t Pravda, the source is a Facebook post.
If you follow the link to the facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid02TWTFhaFZBH1v5EJAzJ5fRTM3bBFk3aJ2fFJjneC54VaKM3X9GajtJR9rjQ6pzXysl
These are very obviously the official numbers, on the official general staff of Ukraine facebook page.
If you compare the numbers to the Ministry of defense, you can see they are the same:
https://www.mil.gov.ua/en/news/2024/09/24/the-estimated-combat-losses-of-russians-over-the-last-day-1400-persons-61-artillery-systems-3-anti-aircraft-systems/You made decision a based on a misunderstanding, which is fair enough, we all make mistakes.
But please accept when you are given the correct info, and adjust accordingly. IDK maybe you are having a bad day.
This is not up to your normal quality of moderation.Also, Newsweek instead linked a Twitter post of the Ukrainian Forces https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-war-russian-troop-losses-peak-levels-1958439
And MSN didn’t even bother linking to a source at all. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russia-s-losses-in-ukraine-as-of-september-24-1-400-troops-and-61-artillery-systems/ar-AA1r6qtq
All told, it would seem like the source linked to in the post was the most authoritative available.
Social media is one of the central ways news organizations get information and has been for over a decade. I mean, that’s one of the central reasons Musk’s Twitter fuckups have been such a big deal! Removing a post for that is really stupid
Yeah, especially since they linked to the post in the article and you could see it was a legit verified account belonging to the Ukrainian General Forces. They did exactly what any good journalist should do.
My biggest problem is the mod is now seemingly reviewing news article sources personally. If an article’s source is judged to be generally very reliable by their own MBFC bot’s source, then a post linking to that source shouldn’t be removed citing that sources unreliability.
Honestly, I still think he saw “Pravda” and thought it was the state-run Russian Pravda and made his decision off that - and has been rationalizing all that ever since rather than admit a mistake. Look at what he commented on the deleted post:
I dunno. Plenty of pro-Russian posters on Lemmy, and in this very thread. It is funny to see people arguing that Ukrainian sources should be removed since they can’t give an unbiased picture of Russian casualties, though–I’m sure Russian sources are totally unbiased, lol!
Transparency posts in good faith should always be allowed (assuming the community doesn’t get overrun).
Maybe more descriptive removal reasons would be helpful?
You are basically judging by your feelings instead of proof.
Those numbers are literally used by every news outlet reporting on that matter because they are believed to be the most accurate numbers.
Anyway, I guess you are too locked in your power position to understand the problem in your mod action.
I am not going to contribute to a community where the mod is building his kingdom instead of volunteering for the community.
Good luck on your power trip.
I’m not judging based on my feelings. If someone posted a link to the Facebook post that would also be removed.
Saying “Someone said this on Facebook!” is how we got the whole “Haitians are eating pets!” thing.
It’s not evidence, it’s not “News”.
It’s pointless for me to keep telling you that this a official communication channel for the source to update people on the stats of the war.
At this stage you are not just arguing against this article, you think that no reporting ever about this should be posted here.
You are coping with the fact that you made a clear mistake here by focusing on the communication channel being used rather than the entity that is reporting the numbers.
As I said before you are judging with your feelings.
If you are not judging by your feelings, reply with a link discrediting the source of this numbers.
Otherwise you are wasting time here.
You know the Ukrainian government can’t exactly easily hold a press conference, right? Respected news organizations often reference those Facebook posts, but if you want, here’s essentially the exact same post directly from the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine website https://www.mil.gov.ua/en/news/2024/09/24/the-estimated-combat-losses-of-russians-over-the-last-day-1400-persons-61-artillery-systems-3-anti-aircraft-systems/
Since you’ve decided to step beyond vetting journalistic sources and doing the reporter’s job for them, did you look at the actual FB post? https://www.facebook.com/share/p/3n2sU1rSuebWeFp4/?mibextid=WC7FNe
Right from the verified page of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
Comparing this to the BS coming out of Ohio is disingenuous at best.
Lol you sound as ridiculous as if you said Trump having an official announcement from a landscaping company wasn’t credible. Sure, the location is kind of dumb, but if Trump gets in front of a bunch of cameras and says things, that’s as credible as it gets.
…not saying Trump is credible, but that’s still a credible source to report “Trump said this.”
To put it another way, you’re not shooting the messenger for the message he brings, you’re shooting him for the horse he rode on.
Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceUkrayinska Pravda (The Ukrainian Truth) - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Ukrayinska Pravda (The Ukrainian Truth):
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - Ukraine
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ukrayinska-pravda-the-ukrainian-truth/
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/Not mod, but a Ukrainian source writing about Russian losses seems a bit biased to me.
You writing about your own opinion is biased too, does that make your opinion invalid?
pravda.com.ua is one of the absolute best sources we have regarding what’s going on in Ukraine.
The moderator is way way off to remove that as an unreliable source.They have a vested interest in making Russia look weak. They are not unbiased.
Who is without bias?
I’ll tell you who, nobody that’s who.
Because being unbiased means perfectly objective, and that is impossible by definition.
Obviously they have Ukrainian bias, but that does not prevent them from being realistic and reporting truthfully.Who is without bias?
Certainly not you
Thank you for the strong counterargument <3 /s
I have already made my argument, thanks for stopping in.
They have a clean fact checking record and if the mod removals is based on bias alone, that will remove a high amount of posts currently in this community.
As I said, mods should not act based on their feelings, they should act only based on proof.
