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 register to comment.
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.
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.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.
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?
IDK why you find the post fishy. These numbers are posted every day on [email protected].
The top sub on lemmy to follow the Ukraine war.
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!
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.
Transparency posts in good faith should always be allowed (assuming the community doesn’t get overrun).
Maybe more descriptive removal reasons would be helpful?
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Just leaving this here https://lemmy.world/post/20121030
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 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?
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.
Yes, for sure we can’t have charged wording here.
You may be right, but it’s still complete bullshit.
Would you trust the news coming from a russian outlet about ukranian forces?
That’s whataboutism and completely irrelevant.
Russia does not have free press, everything from Russia is propaganda.
So it is also a false equivalence.Also by that logic no Western sources are acceptable, because we are allied with Ukraine, and are biased towards Ukraine.
Ukrainian press is as free as russian press, that’s why the equivalence holds.
I didn’t take any pro-Russia stance, but I doubt “supporting” Ukraine is just accepting everything it comes from their outlets.
We are not recruiting soldiers here on lemmy, and the ukranians in the front line do not hear nor care about your thoughts on their propaganda, so we have the possibility to be honest about both parties’ biases, even coming from who we are “allied” with.
Our side of the internet is full of people treating this war like ultras in a football game.
I didn’t take any pro-Russia stance,
Making a false equivalence that clearly favors Russia is absolutely a pro Russian stance.
The rest of your post is first more irrelevancy and the last part is decidedly sick.
We are many here who actually care about the well being of the Ukrainians, who did everything they could to appease Putin and prevent this war.
Russia is committing war crimes everyday against Ukraine, defending that with falsehoods like you do and comparing it to sports is sick.favors Russia
“favors Russia” in what the actual fu**ing sense? Are the sorts of the war going to change based on my opinion on it? As I said before, you (not me) are indeed treating a war as a football game, and you get offended by whatever criticism towards “your team”, no matter what. Your fanaticism obfuscates your view of the factual reality.
We are many here who actually care about the well being of the Ukrainians
I can’t tell if you are saying this with a grin on your face, knowing that what you are saying is false, or if you are naive enough to believe that. I am sure you live in that part of the world that is using Ukrainians as war-meat, sending them more and more weapons while killing off any peace talk initiative. You cheer comfortably from far away their desperate attempt to regain international attention through a suicide invasion of a tiny strip of land (which won’t provide them any additional negotial power), at the expense of their blood. “We” as third party countries at the start of the conflict had immense power over negotiations since we basically dictated Ukraine what to do (which is not surprising considering we put a TV actor/comedian as their president, after broadly supporting the overthrowing of their democratically elected government), and WE chose to NOT negotiate no matter what. It’s unarguable that Russia has the ultimate fault on the war and in the end they should be held accountable for it, but this
care about the well being of the Ukrainians
is uttermost garbage. You made Ukraine support your personality and now can only mentally accept a total victory over Russia (which is in no way possible), and you are totally willing to sacrifice as many Ukrainians as it takes for this little inner victory of yours. This is sick.
the Ukrainians, who did everything they could to appease Putin
I’m not even going to go over this. You correctly stated that in a generic way, as you couldn’t even tell what you meant with this sentence. So while I wait for you to make some light on this amazing no-point you think you made I will just tell you that I am sure the way russian-speaking minorities in the eastern part of the country were being treated appeased the russians very good.
is uttermost garbage. You made Ukraine support your personality
I have no idea where your delusions come from. If Ukraine wanted to cooperate with Russia and be part of their sphere, I would have absolutely zero problem with that. What makes you think otherwise?
Ukraine wanted to become an EU member. But Russia invaded to force Ukraine under Russian control.
Even before that, Russia was already very hostile, and invaded Crimea in 2014, and ever since they’ve created problems for Ukraine in the eastern provinces, propagandizing against the Ukrainian government, and instigating riots.
Ukraine is fighting to get out from under Russian oppression, while Russia is attempting an outright genocide on Ukraine.To say peace with Russia is possible now is delusional, Russia is demanding Ukraine must be controlled by Russia, and that Russia must be given major parts of Ukraine.
The Russian war against Ukraine is illegal and insane. Your retorik continues to support Russia talking points, so claiming you don’t doesn’t make sense. Don’t mind responding, I have blocked you.
Don’t mind responding, I have blocked you.
Childish behavior. But I understand, it is hard to argue any further on something you have been told being your absolute truth, especially with someone who isn’t a mere “putin-shill” making idiotic claims. But I don’t care, I will still answer for those who read the thread, and possibly you when you matured from this behavior.
Please read this article (from Foreign Affairs, not Sputnik), especially the part where it goes:
Already on March 30, Johnson seemed disinclined toward diplomacy, stating that instead “we should continue to intensify sanctions with a rolling program until every single one of [Putin’s] troops is out of Ukraine.” On April 9, Johnson turned up in Kyiv —the first foreign leader to visit after the Russian withdrawal from the capital. He reportedly told Zelensky that he thought that “any deal with Putin was going to be pretty sordid.” Any deal, he recalled saying, “would be some victory for him: if you give him anything, he’ll just keep it, bank it, and then prepare for his next assault.” In the 2023 interview, Arakhamia ruffled some feathers by seeming to hold Johnson responsible for the outcome. “When we returned from Istanbul,” he said, “Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we won’t sign anything at all with [the Russians]—and let’s just keep fighting.” Since then, Putin has repeatedly used Arakhamia’s remarks to blame the West for the collapse of the talks and demonstrate Ukraine’s subordination to its supporters. Notwithstanding Putin’s manipulative spin, Arakhamia was pointing to a real problem: the communiqué described a multilateral framework that would require Western willingness to engage diplomatically with Russia and consider a genuine security guarantee for Ukraine. Neither was a priority for the United States and its allies at the time.
This basically answers to all your non-points backed by buzz-sentences that the mainstream western press printed in your brain. We had a choice, we chose to fight over peace (no, i stand corrected, our leaders did. The vast majority of people, maybe removing the UK and the baltics, would have and still would pick peace over a war at the expense of our economies and Ukranian people).
Ukraine wanted to cooperate more with the west
Ukraine had democratically elected a filo-russian president (the majority of ukranians voted for him), who had no interest in joining the EU. We helped overthrow that government because we did not like it. Also what “cooperation” are you talking about? Bringing our nuclear missiles under an anti-russian alliance is not really matter of economic cooperation.
Russia is attempting an outright genocide on Ukraine
I am glad to know genocide is a word that can be used so loosely when it comes to throwing it at what you perceive is your enemy. Putin did the same when addressing the repression of the donbas indipendence movements in eastern ukraine. You and him go hand in hand when it comes to using words properly.
I think in these situations it’s best to message the mods directly rather than the community.
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/
