The affinity for Tucker Carlson (as well as the other things) is from the sidebar. Apparently their familiarity with Western media is enough to know he is pro-Russian, but not enough to realize that expressing on a leftist forum that they like him, will make them glow a little bit.

The original issue was that they posted a story from Mint Press News, and I dropped them a friendly note that it was Russian propaganda, more or less assuming they had included it innocently (since there was nothing wrong at all that I can see with the particular story, or in fact with any of the stories in that community.)

Things escalated. Fun quotes by the mod from the ensuing conversation:

It’s actually not from “New Knowledge,” it’s from a US Senate report, but I doubt that will make this person believe it any more.

The real disinformation was inside us all this time. Of course, I was banned. Reason for the ban?

Clearly, their disinformation policy is lock tight.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 month ago

    completely discredited conspiracy theory

    Idiot Junior tweeted his own e-mails arranging quid-pro-quo interference for sanctions relief.

    Multiple campaign managers were Russian agents. That’s not an accusation: they’re now registered under FARA.

    The day after The Idiot fired Comey, he had a private Oval Office meeting with Russian spies. No American media was present. No American media was informed. We only know about them laughing it up thanks to the Russian photographers releasing the proof.

    I miss when there was an argument worth having.

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    PTB.

    I think that instance was only hours old when I censured it in Fediseer and promptly de-federated from it.

    Censure reason:

    It’s like they turned the dumpster fire of worldnews [at] lemmy [dot] ml into an instance.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah. If you want some surprises, too, go and look and which user from a different instance was helping them do some initial posts back in the “doing test posts and populating content” days. I guarantee you will find the answer to be interesting.

  • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    lol, I love that despite writing a thorough response they just latched onto the fact that you wrote keke.

    Guy sounds like a tool

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 month ago

    @AltMediaGuy@altmedia.house also, quick question: Is literally everyone on your sidebar connected with Russia in some way? I picked Alastair Crooke at random (never heard of him before), and besides having worked very deeply within Western intelligence (which… you are fine with now? in this direction and this direction only, I guess?), he’s now writing frequently for the Strategic Culture Foundation.

    Is there anyone on the sidebar who’s writing in the present day who is not connected to Russia in some way?

  • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    PTB for sure, this seems like an alt-right troll instance honestly. Probably a good idea for instances who value safety and information accuracy to defederate from it as nothing good can come of a server like this.

  • swelter_spark@reddthat.comBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Wow, every news site I thought was good is actually Russian propaganda. How do people even find this out? I couldn’t tell.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I found out by looking Mint Press up on Wikipedia, I can’t remember whether there was something that made me suspicious or if it was just checking up on sources randomly. I think I read something weird that made me want to look it up.

      Most news sites are not Russian propaganda. Al Jazeera is good, a lot of Western sources are good, random people on Substack are often good. If they don’t come out of the blue with some kind of incongruous view on the Ukraine war then probably they are fine.

      https://rss.ponder.cat/communities has a good selection. New York Times and The Atlantic have some weird stuff (including but certainly not limited to how they view Israel), and for the Drudge Report I have to have a massive blacklist of bad sources that I don’t host when Drudge reposts them. Other than those caveats, all those seem pretty good to me.

    • Universal Monk@feddit.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      It’s getting to be where news from everywhere and anywhere is some sort of propaganda for some side. Are there any truly neutral new sites anymore?!

      • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        If your instance has a tesseract interface, you can turn on the option to show badges that give clues to the political slant and factual trustworthiness of news sites.

        • swelter_spark@reddthat.comBanned from community
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          30 days ago

          But where does that judgment come from, and how does a user know that this, itself, isn’t propaganda?

          • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            30 days ago

            It comes from https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

            If you want to know how they determine their ratings, you can look at their wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

            If you’re looking for some scientific way to figure out if you’re being propagandized, then this isn’t it. If you’re looking for something that’s almost always right on the mark, then it’s good enough for that. Which is why I said it “gives clues”, and didn’t say it’s the authoritative way to know.

            • Universal Monk@feddit.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              30 days ago

              It comes from https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

              Oh then no thank you then. Even in that Wikipedia article they talk about the bias that the company has. In fact, Wikipeida says “Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific.”

              So no, I’m not gonna use a site that just uses “feels” to determine if something is bias or not.

              • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                30 days ago

                That’s a misrepresentation of how they work, but I’m not gonna hold a gun to your head. Mostly because I don’t feel it’s important enough to me that you use it to argue about the matter.

  • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    29 days ago

    Mintpress has awesome articles and amazing journalism. The mod was definitely right.

    Chris Hedges even moreso.

    Tucker Carlson however is a massive fraud which should not be on the list.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      29 days ago

      I am not even a little bit surprised to hear you say that.

      It doesn’t seem either that anyone on the pro-Mint side is interested in looking at the many objective reasons why Mint Press News is Russian propaganda. Their whole strategy is just pretending I am saying something different than what I’m saying, and then poo poo-ing that imaginary thing.

          • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            27 days ago

            “Oh look at my cool Wikipedia page which is completely written like a slander piece in a way no other Newspaper is and all the sources refer to other websites”!

            How are the Israeli mass rapes going which the mainstream Western newspapers reported to have seen video evidence of by the way? Israel said they suddenly have no evidence of it all. Why are their Wikipedia pages not filled with how they spread massive lies about WMD’s in Iraq?

            The Syria case is a peculiar one which may or may not be true but no conclusive evidence has ever been brought forward. The reason the chemical attack case is extremely sketchy is that America declared that to be their red line to start bombing Syria. Then “suddenly” a massive chemical attack happens and America starts attacking the Assad government which was very convenient to its opponents.

            Assad was certainly no nice guy, but the recent Syrian takeover by Al-Qaeda and its instant capitulation to America, promise to normalize with Israel and tireless work to arrest all Palestinian resistance groups and fight Hezbollah only makes it pretty obvious that these groups fighting Assad were no more than American proxies doing their exact bidding.