geekwithsoul

Yes, and it’s clear that they wouldn’t have done an outright temp ban for the length of time they did if you didn’t already have the history you did. Quit painting this as “They couldn’t handle me voicing my opinions” when it was entirely “This guy just won’t stop trolling”. No one really cares about your opinions, they cared about you trolling the community. You trying to make a martyr of yourself is ridiculous.

I got a two-week ban in a community (for posting duplicate article from different sources)

Dude, you got it for that AND a history of trolling, even just after coming off a previous temp ban for trolling. Quit lying.

The problem is the laymen expect it to do reasoning, so the sales & marketing team says that it can do reasoning, and then the CEO will have consumed the Kool-Aid and restructure the company because he believes it can do reasoning.

Always frustrates me how underutilized @media print is. Always liked crafting some good CSS for it on sites, especially ones that I worked on that were document heavy.

You know, I think a good rule of thumb is if someone finds humiliation “funny”, they’re generally kind of an asshole. Even if everyone is in on the “joke”, it’s revealing of a certain kind of mindset.

But that’s the whole point - the source linked in the original post is deemed to be reliable by their own determined tool. So why is a mod nitpicking the text within the linked article? It’s either a reputable source or not. They kept stuff from the New York Times about the Oct 6 attacks even though that didn’t have good sources, and they throw out anything from Fox News even if it’s factually correct.

The mod made a mistake and didn’t seem to realize that the Ukrainian Pravda (legit, privately owner, reliable) is different from Russian Pravda (owned by Russian Communist Party, propaganda) - and keeps coming up with excuses why he did what he did. It’s sad

Now you’re just being intentionally obtuse:

Official Ministry of Defence page with the same numbers:

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/

“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.

That’s why they should be falling back on the reputable sources as shown by their own MBFC bot instead of playing backseat journalist and questioning individual sources within an article.

Dude, really? Did you not see the links I provided from the official Ministry of Defense site or the verified Facebook account? The other news sites providing the same information?

At this point you seem to only be arguing in bad faith because you don’t want to admit you couldn’t tell the difference between Russian Pravda and the Ukrainian Pravda. That was the only thing mentioned in your comment on the removed post, and everything since then has seemingly been posturing.

This is so disappointing - I’ve been a vocal proponent of the job you mods are doing and supportive of your efforts to use what tools you have to help with a difficult job, and you’re just being completely unreasonable about this.

Yeah, thought the same. That’s partly why I bothered to try and explain what was going on - it seemed out of character.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Ah, that makes sense. Didn’t see it because it was a crosspost and my client (Voyager) left that out of the description.

The source for the bot’s info is Media Bias Fact Check, which is separate from Ground News. The admins added the Ground News link because users wanted additional sources and mentioned that one I believe.

I think the bigger question is why it bothered with Internet Archive, since that wasn’t mentioned in the original post, or did I miss something?