Mod Log.

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?

    • geekwithsoul
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • geekwithsoul
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          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?

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

    • geekwithsoul
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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

        • geekwithsoul
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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:

          Source: https://old.lemmy.world/post/20121671

          • BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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!