Here’s actual statistics: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/

Apparently Denmark is leading the pack with 1.83%, closely followed by the 3 Baltic countries. Poland is 7th with 0.68%. The usa is “only” at 0.35%, which is still by far the most of any of the non european nations that have send help, and also significantly more than a bunch of eu nations.

This is all aid, so weapons, humanitarian and financial. With the different kinds split out: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/

You’re probably right. Case in point: Linkerbaan was eventually banned, although it did take a long time.

The opinions on this were interesting. My simplified take: One person thinks it’s even worse than I thought. One person thinks it’s not going to be a problem in the first place. And 3 persons think that it’s a problem that will resolve itself, so no reason to worry.

As Hexbear becomes increasingly isolated, more and more of their users will start making accounts on other instances. After migrating, they’ll still have their toxic post truth discource, but they’ll be harder to identify at a glance. I’m definitely not against cutting ties with Hexbear, I was in favor of it when Lemmy world did it. But now I’m dreading the thought of those users trickling back into my feed one by one. For my personal Lemmy experience, the existence of Hexbear was great in that it kept so many toxic people contained in a place away from me.

Removed by mod

“A printed mark to designate ownership.” is about trademarks, intellectual property. You’re basically saying that Israel trademarked the skin of those prisoners.

Opening a dictionary and looking up a word is one thing, you still need some basic amount of reading comprehension to interpret what you are reading in that dictionary, which you’re clearly lacking.

Removed by mod

It’s not a trademark and it’s not a mark made with a hot iron, so atleast according to the definition that you tried to use as a gotcha, it’s not a brand.

Edit: After I had commented, the person edited out part of the 2nd definition so that the definition would fit their narrative. What was edited out: " (2) : a printed mark made for similar purposes : trademark".

From Miriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand

They’re basically using the (edited) definition of trademark branding to claim that these written numbers are a branding.

According to a fact check article, Israel investigated themselves by such methods as not interviewing any of the victims, after which Israel found that Israel had done nothing wrong: https://thedispatch.com/article/assessing-claims-that-ethiopian-immigrants-to-israel-received-birth-control-shots-without-consent/ If they didn’t want to look suspicious as hell, then they sure failed.

Your article was from 2012. In 2013 the Israeli Ministry of Health ordered gynaecologists to stop the Depo Provera treatments if the patients did not understand what treatment they were getting. This also gets touched on in the fact check.

What the fact check doesn’t mention is that the minister of health at that time was apparently a white supremacist: < Last year, the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who also holds the health portfolio, warned that illegal immigrants from Africa “threaten our existence as a Jewish and democratic state”. > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gave-birth-control-to-ethiopian-jews-without-their-consent-8468800.html

Because of the testimonies, because of Netanyahu and because Israel refuses a thorough independent investigation, I suspect that this forced sterilization campaign really happened.

They’re gloating about it, absolute monsters.

On the other hand, when someone claims something is impossible/something has never happened before/something happens every single time, but you have just 1 anecdote from a credible source that contradicts that claim, then that 1 anecdote is enough to know that they are wrong.

Example: some pundit states: our government has never executed an innocent man. You just need proof that they have executed a single innocent man to show that the pundit has no credibility on the subject and that it’s thus not an impossibility that other executed men were also innocent.

It’s not only their faulty Overton window, imo the big problem is that their “methodology” of determining bias/credibility is very poor. It’s basically 1 volunteer scoring a few metrics of the site being reviewed, which has lead to some very questionable credibility scores in the past, probably caused by the bias and/or amateurism of the volunteers. When those odd scores caused enough controversy, then those scores got arbitrarily adjusted, but only those scores. In particular the owner + volunteer staff of mbfc appears to be very pro Israel, so Zionist propaganda outlets like unwatch get given high scores, while media outlets like the guardian were given the same mixed credibility rating as fox news, for no other reason than that the reviewing volunteer happened to be extremely biased.

If a biased organisation uses a weak process to assign bias ratings, then the output is going to be nonsense. After numerous controversies, they probably have corrected ratings for all large news and propaganda organizations, but smaller ones will not have caused the same controversies and since those ratings are a product of the same process, they’re going to be just as faulty. We just don’t know it because there have been no public controversies about those yet.

Basically you can’t trust their credibility scores. If you know the site being reviewed, then you can make an assessment yourself if the rating is actually credible, in which case you also actually didn’t need the bot to tell you that. And if it’s a small unknown site, then there is no way to know that that credibility rating can be trusted, making the bot useless. And if people were to start trusting the bot, it would be worse than useless.

My advice: Don’t take parental advice from an ai bot.

Your alternative titles really highlight how little you value factuality.

Hezbollah did not claim to be launching a pre-emptive attack. And claiming that they launched a pre-emptive attack after they were already attacked is … Weird.

No one is reporting that Hezbollah was launching these rockets in self defence, because Hezbollah has already let it be known that their attack was a retaliation for the murder of one of their commanders in july.

No news source worth their salt is going to use those titles, because it’s straight up inventing alternate facts.

Your 4 examples of what you want to portray as “non credible reporting” are professionals. Unlike you, they’re not just going to invent news to push their narrative. Yes they have their biases, but unlike your alternate facts, their reporting is based on actual facts.

Hezbollah counter-attacking after being attacked by Israel, does not mean that Hezbollah would have attacked if they had not been attacked first. If your neighbour is a bully, then it’s probably best to not be a pushover.

What does lend the “pre-emptive” claim credibility, is that afterwards Hezbollah said that they had retaliated for the murder of one of their commanders in Beirut. So the Hezbollah attack was not a counter-attack, but rather an attack that they had been preparing for weeks already.

Lots of us know this. Lots of us can also see that the 4 titles that you posted are not an example of this.

Some of those article titles that you are trying to paint as inaccurate, are in fact highly accurate. I can’t find anything wrong with the titles of the guardian and the new York Times that you posted. They are reporting a thing that happened and a thing that was said. They make it very clear that the “pre-emptive” thing is a claim of Israel and not a fact.

Unlike your claim in the OP, The Guardian also doesn’t have a credibility of high on that shitty mbfc site, but only “mixed”.

Yep, this is a good example of what actual inaccurate/deceitful reporting would be like. Unlike the headlines in the post of the op, your made up title is reporting things that didn’t happened, and your quotes are not things that Hamas’ spokespeople have said. It is vaguely based on things that have happened, but it’s mostly just made up and thus completely inaccurate and deceitful.

The tnyt title looks accurate to me: it says Israel is striking Lebanon AND that Israel is casting these strikes as pre-emptive.

The title is not saying that tnyt believes that the strikes are actually pre-emptive, instead it’s reporting that Israel claims that the strikes are pre-emptive. Which is accurate, since Israel does in fact claim that.

What happens when the bias checker is biased?

The mbfc site should not be used for anything. It’s just the subjective opinions of the site owner (who is misleadingly talking about “we” and “our” in his methodology page), aided by a few unknown volunteers who do some of the “checking”. The site claims to be objective, but there’s been enough examples to show that it isn’t (fe, it says that Fox News is as trustworthy as The Guardian or that CNN is somehow center left).

The so called methodology that is used, is just a lot of words that boil down to “several facets were checked by a human and that human gave a subjective rating to each facet, we then count up those subjective ratings and claim to be objective because we use a point system”.

For checking the trustworthiness of a source, I’d say that the mbfc site is about as useful as using CPU Userbenchmark for chosing a CPU. Yes, it’s easy to read and more convenient to use than other sources, but it’s also a load of horseshit and unless you drill down into the underlying “data”, you’re just going to draw the wrong conclusions because of how misleading the site is.

I was wondering what “feminist propaganda” was and apparently it’s talking about misogyny.

Another forbidden topic seemed to be targeted at criticism of misogyny at Game Science. The company has come under fire for lewd and sexist comments attributed in media reports to its founders as well as recruiting materials from 2015 replete with sexual innuendos. Those original job postings and comments were deleted, and the company has not commented. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/world/asia/chinese-videogame-wukong-censorship.html

But this anti feminism attitude is not limited to this 1 gaming company, but government policy under Xi Jinping’s authoritarian rule: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-08/feminism-in-china-internet-crackdown-erase-womens-voices/100165360

In 2022 there were some stories of how people on work visas were unable to jump ship while others were fleeing en masse. And now after all the tech layoffs in the USA, I imagine that finding another company to sponsor their visa, has become a lot harder still. So that’s one group still working there: people who will be deported if they lose their job.