Sami

That’s not what a normal person would conclude, no. Then again normal people don’t have destroyed homes as their profile picture.

Yes, a funeral procession for 4 members.

Any popular posts that involve a minority/enemy of right wingers doing something bad or sticking out get brigaded. A blatant example is PublicFreakout where threads are usually fairly normal unless it’s a black/arab/Indian person doing the antagonizing then pretty much all the top comments are dog or regular whistles. Similar “brigading” can happen even in a city subreddit similar to r/Canada even if they are regular users otherwise. If the post is good enough fodder the subreddit will suddenly resemble a klan meetup even if it’s usually otherwise “normal”.

ActualPublicFreakout is an alternative that doesn’t need brigading because it’s already similar to WorldNews.

Theyre all relaying the same info from an electricite du liban statement…

What part of the content of the article do you think is untrue?

OpenBoard. Has what I need in terms of customization and I can turn off word prediction/correction (not sure if it even has it to begin with). Used to use Swiftkey several years ago but i like OpenBoard more nowadays.

a significant bias against actions taken by Israel

uses emotionally loaded language, such as “genocide” and “enabling,”

left-biased due to its focus on human rights issues

It would be funny if this bot wasn’t actively poisoning the well in the largest news communities

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/radio-free-asia/

This what scores you high credibility: “a less direct propaganda approach” for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

And this is what scores you mixed credibility: “exhibits significant bias against Israel” for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor (updated in Oct 2023 naturally)

Now every article published by Radio Free Asia is deemed more credible than those published by Al Jazeera despite the former literally being called a former propaganda arm of the state in their own assessment. Yes, good is not the enemy of perfect but this is clearly an ideological decision in both instances.

CNN also scores as Mostly Factual based on “due to two failed fact checks in the last five years” one being a single reporter’s statement and the other being about Greenland’s ice sheets. That doesn’t seem like a fair assessment to me

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/

So based on this I am supposed to conclude that Radio Free Asia is the most credible source out of the three at a glance.

Yeah, I’m not saying all their work is worthless and I know they’re good enough for the most extreme sources of misinformation but to paint entire publications as not reliable based on the assessment of couple laypeople with an inherently narrow worldview (at least a very American-centric one) is the opposite of avoiding bias in my opinion.

How do you verify who these people are? For all you know it’s just a bunch of fake names on a page.

I’m not talking about their source of funding but their qualifications in making claims with such broad implications. It looks like the pet project of some guy and couple faceless names who do not even claim any meaningful professional or academic experience.

Here’s an example from your link:

Jim resides in Shreveport, Louisiana with his two boys and is currently working toward pursuing a degree in Psychology/Addiction. Jim is a registered independent voter that tends to lean conservative on most issues.

Media Bias Fact Check, LLC is a Limited Liability Company owned solely by Dave Van Zandt. He also makes all final editing and publishing decisions.

Yeah, looks great to me.

That’s literally what the other source being added called Groundnews attempts to do.

Have you looked into who runs Media Bias Fact Check? It’s pretty much as opaque as it gets for a website that claim to have an authoritative list of biases for hundreds of websites. Just because it’s a meta source does not make it any more credible than any other random website.

That’s just introducing 2 more sources of bias

You wouldn’t have brought them up if you did not consider them to be at least equal. How many times did you ask people if they called the Palestinian cultural genocide a genocide in 2022 when they brought up Ukraine? Ask yourself why not. Goodbye.

You can apply all of this logic to the Palestinians as well starting from the ethnic cleaning in the 40s and subsequent cultural genocide that culminated in what were seeing today. Clearly it is much worse now compared to all other points barring certain events during the nakba. Everyone involved can see and articulate this which goes back to my point of all types of genocides not being equal.

You’re the one that compared them to imply that if you call this a genocide but not this a genocide then you are not consistent than proceeded to name 3 cultural genocides (with Ukraine’s having potential to become a full blown genocide depending on how the war plays out in my opinion).

If we can’t agree that a killings-based genocide is worse than a cultural erasure genocide then there’s nothing left to talk about. Unless you believe that if the Chinese began systematically killing Tibetans tomorrow that nothing would fundamentally change in your classification.

Genocide absolutely has to do with severity even if the technical criteria do not explicitly define said severity. That is why more human right lawyers have about been vocal about a genocide occurring in Gaza than have about one occurring Xinjiang. An assessment has to deem war crimes and human rights abuses to amount to genocide along with intent determined through those actions. I urge you to read the OHCHR’s report on Xinjiang and see how they choose their terms carefully despite having evidence for a array of different human rights abuses: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf

Yes, I agree that the cultural genocide aspects are very serious and those responsible should be face punishment. My point is not to minimize the cultural genocides but to say that the physical killing of civilians is a tier above the cultural erasure aspect in the awful calculus that were discussing and Gaza is a much more clear-cut case of that than the others.