Hacker News Reader

Comment by waynesonfire | Hacker News Reader

reddit removed this link due to not passing media bias.. interesting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaCoronavirus/comments/oqawe5/s...

"Reddit" didn't remove the link, an individual volunteer moderator of the specific subreddit removed it. Saying that Reddit removed it is like saying that GitHub rejected my pull request to Docker.

reddit is a community made up of the moderators, contributors, editors, lurkers, and also the company that finances it. Without them reddit doesn't exist. so reddit did remove the link, for if such behavior wasn't tolerated it would be cancelled, just as this post is being down-voted. if you want to get more specific about it, that's great. thanks for pointing it out. it's irrelevant to my intentions.

and don't worry, github removes PRs too, https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-notice-wipes-reverse-engineere...

They're hinting to you that complaining that a moderator of a small forum somewhere on the internet removing your article is not particularly interesting or valuable.

The website the mod linked to is Mediabiasfactcheck.com

The article is from Inside Medicine published via Bulletin.com by author Jeremy Faust.

I can't find any of the above sources listed on the site provided. If we want to have a conversation about the mods decision and if it should give us pause, we'll first have to understand the reasoning (or verify if it's even credible) of the mod.

As an aside: Media Bias/Fact Check is not a reputable source for measurements of media bias. They might get some ratings correct, but I also see them regularly basing ratings off of a few cherry-picked articles rather than a broader body of articles, in a way that suggests to me that they are purposeful in painting a selective picture of bias. They don't have a systematic methodology to determine bias. The Columbia Journalism Review wrote about this a few years ago as they were gaining popularity (https://www.cjr.org/innovations/measure-media-bias-partisan....), noting that their ratings are basically the opinions of a small group of people. All Sides has a better bias ratings database (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings) and is more honest about what their methodology is and what the limitations are (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-method...).

> I can't find any of the above sources listed on the site provided.

The relevant rule is "Use Reliable Sources" and the subreddit seems focused on facts and statistics. I think it makes sense to default to disallowing random websites not reviewed by the source they've chosen for bias review.

A number of the biggest coronavirus subreddits also openly censor articles and ban users for the slightest violation of their biases. For example if you share articles or studies that suggest lockdowns are illogical, or that the virus may have originated from a lab leak, or that the infection fatality rate is low, you would see your discussions closed and potentially get a permanent ban from those subreddits. Perhaps the mods of some of these subreddits have relaxed things over time, but the rampant censorship practiced by mods on Reddit often creates echo chambers and prevents society from seeking the truth more efficiently.

It’s not censorship if some admins (private persons) decide they don’t want it. Try discussing Windows topics in a Linux subreddit.

If I had a blog with comment function and someone writes a comment I don’t like I’m not forced to publish it. It’s the same situation.

The solution is of course decentralization and self hosting communities and not blaming reddit for decisions of individual admins.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com