this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
162 points (99.4% liked)

World News

39041 readers
2186 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

…and that is the problem with banning people for their views… sooner or later an echo chamber becomes boring. And they too will probably go elsewhere, where their views will go unchallenged as well. Fast forward a few years and everyone becomes ever more convinced of their own sectarian “truths”.

Unless he was particularly obnoxious about it, don’t know the story 🤷🏻‍♂️

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

They were banned for repeatedly posting from unreliable sources, or just outright Milei mouthpieces, to push their agenda after being warned to stop. See rule 3.

Also, as I said, it was a temporary ban. I think a week.

[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ooph, there the same issue again, about what we consider “propaganda”. I have yet to meet someone with objective standards on this, who is able to hold people he agrees with politically to the same standard. Many on here also seem to hate the MBFC ratings that were added to at least create some baseline. So, at the end of the day the value judgements people make on these matters are more often biased than not. Anyway, I am actually interested in even “mouthpieces”, as I am always curious how the other side actually defends what they do, and they could be just marked as such for the avoidance of doubt.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Okay, well you're welcome to not consider state mouthpieces to be unreliable sources, but they are considered to be here.

[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

That is not what I said, but ok, let’s leave it at this :)