When I was on in Reddit I used to do it all the time, but writing everything out, organizing it and including citations etc. can be rather time-intensive.
These days, I'll leave a quick comment on a post if I have enough time, but nothing major.
I used to be a fan of it, but in the past couple of years I've seen MBFC rate sources as "highly credible" that are anything but, particularly on issues involving geopolitics. That, plus the inherent unreliability of attempting to fix an entire news outlet to a single point on a simple Left <-> Right spectrum, has rendered it pretty useless, in my opinion.
There days I'm much more of the opinion that it's best to read a variety of sources, both mainstream and independent, and consider factors like
is this information well-sourced?
is there any obvious missing context?
is this information up to date?
what are the likely ideological biases of this writer or publication?
What is the quality of the evidence provided to support the claims made in the article?
And so on. It's much better this way than outsourcing your critical thinking to a third party who may be using a flawed methodology.
Certainly from a mainstream political standpoint he appears to be fairly liberal with some progressive policies. However, the writer is using the term 'leftists' to mean socialists or left-wing "radicals" (whatever that means).
His stance of Israel is really what will be the clincher for leftists, as is the case with Harris. On the plus side, they are both taking a softer line in terms of how they discuss the genocide in public, but of course neither of them would ever utter the phrase with relation to the Palestinians -- that would be too radical.
Therefore, there's a lot of doubt as to whether either of them will break from Biden's policy of continuing to send bombs and military hardware to Israel, as both are apparently very much in the "Israel has the right to defend itself" camp.
You can bet they have their polling data that says otherwise. Shapiro was a deeply controversial pick who could have killed a lot of the enthusiasm, and he only helps in one individual swing state. Waltz Walz has broad demographic appeal, so they presumably weighed up both and decided that he was the better bet.
As someone who has lived in Thailand, I get why Thais were pissed. The hotel, the taxi, the public transport all look like they're from 30 years ago. Yes, you do still find run-down buildings and tuk-tuks in Bangkok today, but it's generally a lot more developed and modern than westerners expect on first arrival. Instead of showing the reality, the creators of this ad went out of their way to portray an outdated caricature.
To an outsider it might seem like nitpicking, but Thais are fed up with being presented this way to an international audience.
Because he is the owner of the very platform that helped to stir up the recent neofascist riots in the UK that led to POC being attacked and terrorized and properties looted and burned. His tweets are seen by millions of people, and greatly contribute towards online extremism and polarization.
MBFC rates it as "highly credible" despite it publishing laughably bad hit-pieces on UN officials who openly criticize Israel.
I did a debunk on one of their articles that was removed from this very community due to disinformation, but I've posted a screenshot of my critique here for anyone who is interested.
I have another one - MBFC rates a site called UNWatch as "highly credible" when in fact they run trash-tier hit pieces on UN officials who criticize Israel. Their articles have been removed from WorldNews@Lemmy.world for disinformation.
I'm not necessarily fully agreeing with OP's thesis that MBFC is a pro-Zionist project, but something is very much amiss if UNWatch is considered to be a "highly credible" source.
I myself debunked a highly flawed and biased article from UNWatch that was posted to News@Lemmy.world* last month. The post was removed by the moderator (@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world) after being determined as disinformation. (I can't link to it, since it has been removed, but if you want to see the details of my critique, check out this screenshot of my comment)
Having seen that first hand, I would absolutely say that MBFC's credibility rating system is, at the very least, questionable.
Pretty much. Netanyahu never wanted a ceasefire to begin with. My guess is that any talk of a path to a two-state solution or a ceasefire has just been a stalling tactic used by the US to deal with any criticism of Israel's war crimes. I wonder how long the State Department can keep this charade going, quite honestly.
Lol talk about a rhetorical question. Israel just assassinated the political head of Hamas. This should serve as proof that that any talk of a deal or a ceasefire over the past six months has been a sham. This means months or even years of war and thousands of more deaths, which is what Netanyahu wanted all along, while the US argues weakly in support of Israel's "right to defend itself".
If you define "good" as 1) a dangerous escalation that could spark a regional war and 2) effectively killing all hope of a ceasefire in Gaza, then I guess so?
As if there were any doubt about the Israeli government's disregard for human rights, you have members of the Likud party openly saying that anyone held in detention (without trial) in the Sde Teiman concentration camp is a terrorist and therefore "anything can be done to them", including torture and rape.
aleph @ aleph @lemm.ee Posts 4Comments 582Joined 2 yr. ago 
When I was on in Reddit I used to do it all the time, but writing everything out, organizing it and including citations etc. can be rather time-intensive.
These days, I'll leave a quick comment on a post if I have enough time, but nothing major.