Suggestion regarding New York Post

It seems like people posting here constantly drop links to the New York Post.
My suggestion? Either ban those links as spam or, at the very least, find a way to flag them as satire.
I mean, how else are you supposed to interpret a publication that claims the Earth center space? It’s clearly meant to be a joke.

Since some users have actually taken articles from Newsbar seriously, I think it would be in the public interest to implement a specific tag for satirical sites. That way, readers know exactly what they're looking at—instead of thinking Glavas actually recommended charging up car batteries.

Moderators, please come up with a solution. We need to address this issue of misinformation.

Look, every subforum has its own set of rules and those definitions can be pretty blurry, but yeah, I'm with you on this one.
I honestly think the New York Post should just be relegated to the "alternative" theory sections under Health, Natural Science, or World News.
I haven't been browsing much lately, so I'm not sure if "Close Politics" is still a more laid-back corner of the site... maybe they could allow it there, but ban it from any of the serious political discussions.
Dropping a link to the New York Post during a heavy debate is basically the digital equivalent of telling a cancer patient to just drink colloidal silver or go bask in the sun, or maybe just rambling about how the Earth is flat.
A mountain of nonsense like that hasn't quite hit the mainstream American media scene yet, so it wouldn't be out of line to treat it like the other ridiculous theories mentioned above, just to keep everything in its proper place... maybe you'll actually do the community a favor by doing so.

Censorship is a dangerous game.
Why on earth would anyone assume the New York Post is some kind of bastion of natural science or rational thought? It’s hardly a scholarly journal, is it?

Sensationalism is everywhere; you see it on every single site out there, including Monitor☕

If we briefly ignore the fact that Adam Morales45, lonebadger6, Matthew Young35, and the rest aren't actual people but just digital handles—making it pretty hard to call anything on a private forum "censorship" in the first place... it's still not censorship, but rather (if you ask me) just putting people in their place.
Sure, you could argue that banning someone from pitching liquid silver as a cure for cancer in a thread about oncology is censorship, but... those are just the rules.

And yeah, everything is yellowed and decaying, and the media landscape today is generally a total disaster, but grouping the New York Post in with them is honestly an insult to anyone with a functioning brain. It’s right up there with claiming the Earth is a flat plane...

I'm with you on the idea that the New York Post is basically just running a censorship operation. Since they position themselves as an "alternative" outlet, I really think they should be treated like one—especially considering how much they lie and mislead their readers. It honestly pains me to see people treating Newsbar as some sort of serious authority, but at least Newsbar isn't out there peddling fascism or creationism, nor do they spend their time lying, manipulating facts, or spitting on anyone who dares to have a different opinion.

Personally, I think we should just toss the New York Post onto a bonfire and make the Los Angeles Times mandatory reading for everyone.

Is the New York Post even any different from Index or the Los Angeles Times, just flipped on its head? 🤔
Honestly, it feels like the LA Times is basically just a version of the New York Post, and maybe Index is actually a step above them both...
Not that I actually read any of this crap on purpose, so I probably stumble onto even stupider nonsense on Index than what you find in the LA Times or the New York Post...

Bottom line, I don't read any of this garbage, but a few links I've unfortunately clicked on are either pure comedy gold (if you're in the mood to laugh at stupidity) or a straight-up insult to your intelligence (if you actually want to think about the nonsense being written)...
But the real question is, which of our media outlets isn't like this?
Especially when it comes to those classic, mindless debates about old-school political extremists 🤦

lonebadger6 said:Even if we briefly ignore the fact that "Adam Morales45," "lonebadger6," "Matthew Young35," and the rest aren't actual human beings—just digital handles on a private forum, which makes calling anything they do "censorship" a bit of a stretch—it still isn't censorship. In my view? It’s simply corrective action. Keeping people in their lane.
By that logic, you could argue that banning someone from pitching liquid silver consumption in a thread about cancer is "censorship," but... well, those are just the rules.

And sure, there's garbage everywhere and modern media is generally a disaster, but putting the New York Post in the same category? That’s an insult to common sense. It’s as absurd as claiming the flat earth theory holds any water.

So, I suppose you are the ultimate authority on our common sense and emotional development. 🙄
We should probably just wait for your guidance on what to read on the web, since you're clearly brilliant enough to know exactly what's best for us all. 🤣

Thanks for that. Take care of yourself. 🥱

btw,

Discussing colloidal silver on the Alternative sub-forum is NOT censored. 😬

What’s with all the censorship?
I mean, people on the forums should be able to decide for themselves whether a source is actually legit or not.

As far as I'm concerned, the New York Post is total garbage; most of what they publish strikes me as nothing short of tragicomic. That said, as others have pointed out, there is an equally ridiculous amount of nonsense appearing on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Consequently, if we were to start cherry-picking politically relevant sources among various outlets and newspapers, we would very quickly find ourselves in a ridiculous bind where a potentially well-written piece from the New York Post might be rejected, while some absolute drivel from, say, the New York Post or USA Today gets a pass.

Therefore, I don't see banning an entire portal or newspaper as something that would yield any positive results. If anything, those junk producers would just lean into it, playing the martyr and claiming they are being censored online by political opponents.

The solution lies elsewhere: a link to a stupid article should be treated individually, just as it has been until now. In other words, moderators can simply continue to delete links to trolling, off-topic, or just plain moronic articles (and issue penalties if necessary), and when something does manage to stay up, such links say more about the person who shared them than anything else.

In my view, the much larger issue is the sharing of "news" from media outlets that lack any semblance of editorial policy. By this, I mean Facebook, blogs, and other forums. We have frequently seen instances where links to complete fabrications originate from such sources. Regarding this, I believe moderators are free to be even sharper and more diligently sanction those who share such things (especially in cases where people, knowing the source is irrelevant, create a quote but fail to include a link to, say, Facebook).

Adam Morales45 said:So, you’re clearly the ultimate authority on our common sense and emotional maturity... 🙄
We should probably just follow your lead on what to read on the Internet since you're such a genius at figuring out exactly what we need to know 🤣

Thanks, take care of yourself. 🥱

btw,

Discussing colloidal silver over in the Alternative subforum isn't censored. 😬

1. Talking about colloidal silver in the Alternative section really isn't censored, but nobody actually said it was... "Censorship" is an issue in the HEALTH subforum 😉 And I never suggested The New York Times should be banned from the entire site, just that everything needs its proper place—much like colloidal silver, given they share the same level of credibility 🙂

2. As for your common sense or emotional development, I couldn't care less... You're an adult, and you were raised however you were raised.

Dorian—I think there's a massive difference between saying:
"This is garbage, pure garbage."
and...
"There is some garbage here."

It's kind of like looking at a neglected field overgrown with weeds and saying, "Look, there's weeds everywhere" 🙂

Anyway, I get the general logic behind the rest of this...

lonebadger6 said:1. Talking about colloidal silver over on the Alternative subforum isn't actually censored. But nobody ever said it was. "Censorship" applies to the HEALTH section 😉. I’m not suggesting The New York Times should be banned from the entire site; I'm just saying it needs to find its proper place, much like colloidal silver does, since they carry about the same weight in terms of truthfulness. 🙂

2. Honestly, I’m not losing any sleep over your common sense or emotional maturity. You’re an adult. You were raised a certain way, and that's that.

Dorian—I think there's a massive difference between saying:

"This is garbage, pure garbage."

and...

"There's some garbage in here."

It's kind of like looking at an overgrown field and saying, "Wow, look at all this weed everywhere!" 🙂

Anyway, I get the general logic behind the rest of this stuff.

What counts as garbage, though? To you, maybe The New York Times is trash, but for me, the real propaganda outlets were things like the Los Angeles Times or PBS. ☕
You're trying to sneak censorship through the side door, acting like your opinion—and the opinions of everyone who agrees with you—should be the only ones that matter.
This forum is democratic, and that's just not how we roll here. ☕

granitefalcon26 said:What counts as trash? Maybe The New York Times is garbage to you, but to me, the real trash was those old state-run propaganda rags like the Los Angeles Times or PBS... ☕
You’re trying to sneak censorship through the back door here, acting like your opinion—and the opinions of everyone who agrees with you—should be the only one that matters...
☕This forum is democratic, and that little power trip isn't going to fly...

People could make that exact same "argument" if they were pushing colloidal silver as a cancer cure or claiming the Earth is flat. You can find plenty of stuff about lizard people and similar nonsense right there on The New York Times... And they get "censored" too, apparently, because they aren't allowed to start threads on the FBI boards about living on a flat plane or how staring at the sun cures everything...
Basically, it's not even an actual argument... Most people crying about censorship don't even understand what the word means...

Anyway, as far as I know, this isn't a debate floor, it's a suggestion box...
Bjesomar made a suggestion, some people liked it, some didn't, the admins will have their say—which they basically already did—and that's that...

William Bennett53 said:As far as I'm concerned, The New York Times is trash, and most of what they publish feels like a tragicomedy.

Most of it is just pure nonsense—a bunch of absurdities from the "clerical right."
It would be funny if it wasn't backed by such heavy-duty hate speech. Their propaganda actually spreads because the sheer stupidity of what they write is almost entertaining; in the absence of actual American satire, people flock to it.

If you dig even a little, it’s not hard to find blatant antisemitism clumsily masquerading as news.

Just look at this text:

secret-plan-of-the-walls-that-rule-the-world

http://www.nytimes.com/world/...state.html

Modern Jews aren't descendants of Abraham; they come from Khazaria, which stretched across what is now Ukraine. Basically, nearly all European Jews and Jews in the US descend from Ukraine, which used to be Khazaria.
The Khazars were historically called the "devilish tribe" and are identified in the Book of Revelation 2:9 as the wicked "
synagogue of Satan" (I know your afflictions and your poverty—but you are rich!—and the insults of those who call themselves Jews, but are not, but are Satan's synagogue
). Additionally, they are identified in Ezekiel 38 and 39 as the apocalyptic nation of Gog from the land of Magog. The prophecy clearly states that this bloody and warlike tribe will conquer Israel, and subsequently subjugate the entire world, inciting war and chaos. This is happening right now , right before our eyes.

Or just type "Jewish" into the search bar and see how they're written about on these pages:

(type into your browser—no spaces around the colon—to search by keyword)

Jewish site: www.nytimes.com

Then we have articles from an antisemite "proving the fact that there was no Holocaust" (wrapped up as if he's just presenting his "factual evidence" without any commentary).

http://www.nytimes.com/world/...holocaust.html

French academic Faurisson dedicated much of his life to historical revisionism, primarily regarding the Holocaust. His research led to the publication of numerous professional papers in which he claims there is actually no evidence supporting the mass, planned extermination of Jews.

From the moment his research and findings hit the global stage around 1974—when he sent a letter to Yad Vashem, the official memorial center in Israel dedicated to all Holocaust victims, where he presented a long list of arguments supposedly proving the fact that there was no genocide against the Jewish people during World War II—Faurisson ran into significant trouble;

or

(type into your browser—no spaces around the colon)
Communist site: www.nytimes.com

are-communists-different-from-nazis
http://www.nytimes.com/news/politics/denying-the-holocaust

It honestly baffles me that the authorities aren't stepping in. Behind all that "edgy" nonsense is just pure hate speech, slowly poisoning everyone's minds who reads this stuff.

granitefalcon26 said:This forum is democratic, so you won't get away with that. ☕

And that’s exactly why being a democratic forum means hate speech isn't allowed.

Is that the same conspiracy site where Zrinka K. posts? Honestly, that alone is reason enough to ban him. 🤣

I honestly feel like this whole thread is just a sneaky attempt to bring back communist-style censorship, IMO

-Stipe

I’m totally fine with The New York Times being banned, provided that the Los Angeles Times gets the boot too. ☕

No way.
You just can't trade a top-tier messenger in a prisoner exchange for some worthless collection of old-school leftist pamphlets from the Los Angeles Times.

It’s honestly like we're sacrificing one of our own national heroes just to get some coward from the other side back.

-Stipe

The conversation has completely gone off the rails...
In any case, we should stick to the established protocol: there are no forbidden media sources, but there are certainly forbidden directions for discussion. If someone crosses the line into hate speech, they ought to be held accountable, regardless of whether they were simply quoting an article that makes the same point. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the users for what they choose to share, while it remains the moderators' duty to step in and make corrections when users fail to police themselves.

If anyone from the administration would like to weigh in, feel free.
I'm done.