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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Source is unvetted information from a Facebook page.
I have personally shown you the link that proves the numbers are the official numbers.
It has been explained very clearly to you that your claim is false, the posts on facebook are OFFICIAL by the armed forces!!
That the numbers are being verified is a normal military jargon, because war is chaos, and the influx of information is constant.
The numbers are verified for instance by flyovers, all military in the world do this!! These numbers are verified constantly, and what we get is a "snapshot" every day.
For a period of almost a year, the numbers in English were ONLY available on the OFFICIAL facebook and telegram page for the armed forces. While the ministry of defense only posted the numbers in Ukrainian and without the graphics.
You are being unreasonable and stubborn for some reason, chaotic yes, good no.
Your claim is false, your reasons are based on ignorance, you are outright lying to support your claim and you are being stubborn as an ass about it. Even if everything you claim was true, pravda.ua is a reputable news source.
You wouldn’t accept it if Russia was doing it,
This is whataboutism ands a false equivalence, what russian source are you referring to? The Russian Pravda is state owned propaganda, and in Russia if a journalist even call it a war, they will be send to prison!!! Ukraine has free press, Russia does not.
Pravda.ua is part of the free press in line with mostly every other western country.the article was demonstrated to be based on OFFICIAL data.
Thanks. It must not be easy to impartially moderate content regarding a war and keeping it factual, when most of the userbase lives in countries directly or indirectly on one side of the conflict.
OMG you have NO idea. I know people in Lebanon RIGHT NOW. People who have lived through previous Israeli assaults. It's super hard to step back and go "So, wait, if it were the other side doing this..."
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.
This ^ is the same person which, after I dared to answer to their buzz-sentences about the war ("Russia is the evil, doing genocide, they don't want to negotiate" etc) with some arguments and a few facts that they didn't like (but they didn't respond to), proceeded to throw in a few more bullet points with zero-claims out of their feelings, and informed me that they blocked me. Lmao. Karen/Simon who believe what they are told on facebook must always bee the right side of history.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.