Note:
I swapped the original article at the request of a mod to from a source deemed more reliable, but to avoid confusion when reading the comment section prior to this edit, here is the link to the original article. I chose the Relief Web source listed by some who commented. Cheers!
WSWS tends to do accurate reporting in my experience.
It was showing as middle of the road for the credibility rating, which on its own is shaky but with a corroborating report strengthens it.
IIRC it’s considered middle of the road due to political leanings rather than the actual credibility of the reporting.
Which, tbh, is sort of concerning when evaluating credibility because political leanings do not change whether a report is factual or not.
Concerning censorship: you’d hope that the mods would at least make their own judgment of the substance of the article in question before crumbling to establishment Overton window policing.
Basically one mod first said they will keep it since it’s factual, then another removed it for reports but put it back up after I spoke to them, and lastly I was asked to switch the link all together.
I guess some people are sending out lots of reports on this even though:
(1) the article was factual (2) the MBFC rating is acceptable (3) The article links to the report it reports on
Which makes me just want to shrug my shoulders…
Political forums often have this cynical undercurrent of concern trolling where the aim is to limit the breadth of sources discussed. No easier way to ‘win’ an argument than illegitimately limiting the facts in play in your favour.
Yeah, I don’t like removing posts for political reasons. On lemmy.ml’s news community we try to allow for a wider range of sources.
Thanks for the tip. I subscribed.
Just for the record, I checked MBFC and it said it’s highly credible and mostly factual. If MBFC is what determines these “truths about credibility”, then I don’t understand why people would report it or on what basis