Commented on a post with the most recent (non-Breitbart) headline and updates. Added this with 3 independent sources:
FYI, Breitbart is a far-right, low-quality source.
Mod apparently didn’t like a more reputable source being added to their post because it was removed in minutes lol.
reason: Rule 6 Violation
Rule 6: Using the Poisoning The Well fallacy to attack sources shared in a post is presently not allowed (this rule may change in the future, and isolated instances will not subject you to a permanent ban)
Just admit you want an echo chamber to spread disinformation and promote biased articles! Using this rule to police sources is very thinly-veiled censorship…
Hm… I just looked over their comment history and I have to say you kind of have a point. I have RCR mentally categorized as a bad-faith engager, but I really don’t see much at all of that after a quick glance over what they’ve actually been doing.
I think there is a big example set in conservative media that the right way to go about things is to spew propaganda, or be “snarky” and refuse to engage with reasonable conversation about politics in favor of just dunking on the opposition. That comes across as “fun,” or as sort of doing battle for “your team” in the marketplace of ideas, and I think people are taken in by the idea of it even if they’re not necessarily bad people or intending to do anything wrong. Looking over RCR’s history I’m going to take back what I said about their intent being to violate the social contract. I think they’re just posting a bunch of conservative stuff. Which, of course, there’s a lot of overlap between that and naked propaganda, but that doesn’t necessarily have to be their fault or their intent if that’s just the media they consume.
@[email protected] as an olive branch I’m going to ask you about some details of some of the stuff you’ve said recently, under appropriate comment threads. You don’t have to answer my questions of course if you don’t want to. I am just trying to sort out whether you are (1) posting this stuff because you think it’s true (2) posting it because “doing battle for your team” so to speak is the pattern of behavior you see, by fun conservative commentators you’re trying to emulate (3) posting it because you’ve independently decided that you don’t give a shit whether it’s true as long as it “feels” like a win for your side. Those are somewhat different behaviors, as far as how you’re treating the social contract and as far as the Nazi bar analogy people have been talking about here, and so if you want people to treat you and your instance some certain way you might want people to be placing you in the earlier categories instead of the later ones.
Edit: Oh, one of the comments I wanted to respond to is not federated here. My question is:
Where did you read this? Can I find out more details about why you think this is happening, and read for myself the argument that it is happening?
Hey! I really appreciate you looping me in on this.
For the things I post, I’ll usually post them because I either 1) think that the content is probably both relevant and true, 2) it portrays a relevant perspective, or 3) is just plain interesting
If any articles I share make false claims in a community like @[email protected] then I’m more than happy to remove them. For places like @[email protected] I’m not as careful and I hope it’s clear that the stuff over there or at @[email protected] aren’t always going to be 100% true or objective.
Now as far as my behavior is concerned @bdonvr@[email protected] if I’m no longer welcome here I’ll leave. Many of my communities here are continuations of my old Lotide communities, and I only left that software because it’s abandonware now. I’m sure at this point there’d be other Lemmy instances I could go to if you don’t like what I post here.
Edit: Also, the point of Rule 6 was to reduce spam, as my communities were starting to get brigaded by leftists basically saying “fake news” verbatim in the comment sections of certain news posts. I don’t like those types of rules, but it seems necessary for now since it keeps happening. It’s a neutral rule, so if anyone says “fake news” on an article from a center or left leaning source I’ll remove that comment too.
Edit 2:
This was something I noticed during BLM riots particularly, and in some blue areas afterwards like in New York (though not as prominently since the riots), there’d be cases of somebody stealing something or hurting someone, caught on video, and the DA would refuse to place charges on the individual. For the life of me I couldn’t figure out why else they would do that.
Now to be fair I think there was some overlap between the BLM riots and me still watching Steven Crowder so maybe some of the stuff I observed at the time wasn’t entirely accurate or correct (I stopped watching him during the Summer Of Love because I noticed he wasn’t as truthful as he claimed to be during his coverage)