I made an admittedly editorialized post, but that is allowed. There is no rule against editorializing titles. The link was to this excellent story by Erin Reed:

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/iowa-dem-josh-turek-releases-anti

The story documents the efforts of Democrat-in-Name-Only Josh Turek to graft Republican anti-trans policies and bigotry into the Democratic party. The (supposed) automoderator flagged the post and removed it for being a "substack post." However, it was likely a manual removal as I would expect automoderator to work quickly, while this was up for hours.

The rule cited was:

"Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading."

This article clearly meets this requirement. Erin in the Morning is an entire journalistic operation with multiple employees. I'm sure they're incorporated in some form. Erin Reed is the most prominent trans rights journalist in the US, probably in the world. She's nationally famous, has won numerous national journalism awards, and has a Wikipedia page. She frequently appears on national media and speaks at events of all kinds. She is one of the most prominent transgender people in the United States.

But apparently if you're trans, to c/politics, regardless of what you accomplish, you can never be a real journalist, only a blogger. Real journalism is for cis people only.

Jordanlund has a personal crusade against substack and anything that is slightly critical of the dnc or dems. Sadly it is absolutely no surprise he removed both that and the video link earlier in the day.

Becareful when confronting this mod as they both have the full support of lemmy world AND will immediately insult you for questioning them or the rules

Tldr jordanlund so always prb

Edit 2: Regardless of Rule 2, YDI for the flagrant Rule 1 violation for titles.

I don't think this comm has an acronym for this, but:

• Erin in the Morning advertises itself as the personal blog of Erin. At a glance, there's zero indication this isn't a Rule 2 violation.
• I saw this post just a few minutes before you posted this (and upvoted it? I forget). So the fact your post here is multiple paragraphs long tells me that as soon as it was pulled, you rushed here instead of trying to dispute it with the mods, immediately assuming transphobic bad faith was the reason your post (which at best toes the line of Rule 2) was removed. Edit: I made a mistake here and confused this with the same article posted in another comm. Although it still doesn't seem like you tried to message the mods before this for clarification or to try and appeal, which is the main point – namely that you're assuming transphobic bad faith without at least trying to talk with them first given your post at best toes the line.

At worst, YDI because it's against a stated rule, and at best (assuming this is worked on by a broader editorial team), you're not giving them a chance to reconsider and instead assuming the absolute worst of them.

Edit: Scrolling back to the beginning of this year, I see two authors: "Erin Reed" and "S. Baum (They/Them)". I was able to find contributors before that, but it's pretty clear the Substack in the last year is just a couple of people writing without a broader editorial team or other entity behind them. And there's literally zero evidence EITM is incorporated; you just said surely it must be.

If I had to enforce Rule 2, I would've removed this for being a personal Substack blog – even though I don't agree with the rule. (And would instead predicate the rule on reliability.)

This isn't about "is this a good rule". I liked the article, found it informative, and wished it stayed up.

Edit 2: Also, OP, there definitely is a rule against what you did to the title:

If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive.

The original title is:

Iowa Dem Josh Turek Releases Anti-trans Ad Calling For A Federal Funding Ban On Trans Care

There's nothing ambiguous about this headline; nothing about it needs changing to "add context" or "be more descriptive" short of maybe clarifying that he's running for Senate.

Your title is:

Republican Josh Turek [this is false; Josh Turek is a member of the Democratic Party in the Iowa House of Representatives and was literally endorsed by Barack Obama], Successful Subverter of the Iowa Democratic Senate Primary [did I miss something? It literally just seems like Turek ran against Wahls normally and won], Continues Democratic Party's Degeneration Towards the Support for the Liquidation of Transgender Americans.

So you completely changed the original headline, increased its length by over 50%, and did so in order to fit in an outright lie and then editorialize to fuck and back. YDI for the Rule 1 violation alone.

Sadly it is absolutely no surprise he removed both that and the video link earlier in the day.

I don't know what video link you're referring to, but literally the first five words in their rules are:

Post only links to articles. [emphasis theirs]

So... no shit?

the screenshot says "3 hours ago", so 3 hours must've past between removal and this post

Oh, my bad. I must've seen it in another similar comm then. I'll edit my comment to reflect that. Good catch.

/c/politics is a hive of scum and pedantry, with a healthy dose of hypocrisy. If you say:

Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading

...while allowing articles that are blatant AI summaries from trash rags like the DailyBeast and Business Insider simply because they're tied to a company, you're not fostering political discussion. You're advancing a corporate agenda.

I think that's somewhat fair.

What rule would you suggest to keep out random blogs but include the ones of significance?

I wouldn't. I'd let the community decide via voting. You don't engender discussion by silencing speakers because they don't meet your requirements of legitimacy. If there's a question of legitimacy or bad faith discussion, identify it, talk about it, and downvote the hell out of it if needed.

But don't remove it. Once you do, you're no longer curating a discussion. You're promoting an agenda.

Rejecting a voice out of hand because of whom its coming from is blatant censorship, and a tacit admission that your ideas can't compete with theirs in the arena of public discourse.

I’ve had a fair few issues with that comm. I was at least able to get them to allow journalist org substacks whereas previously it had been a flat ban on everything sub stack.

Erin in the Morning, being one of if not the most prominent trans journalist with all the breaking stories is simply not allowed and other organisations rarely cover what she does so so-much news is never heard.

I’ve mostly taken to sharing her articles on !politics@lemmy.dbzer0.com or !usa@quokk.au

JL has been calling CMS like substack "blogs" for a while now, and removing any link using them. It's an absurd statement, but at least he's being consistent(ly wrong).

They don't know or follow their comms rules most of the time so it's irrelevant.

Jordan is always a ptb

One of their campaign ads is look how much I vote with Republicans

https://turek4iowa.com/news/new-josh-turek-for-iowa-releases-new-ad-prove-it/

“In the Senate, Josh will work with anyone to clean up corruption and secure the border, including President Trump,” the narrator says in the ad. “And he’s got 700 votes to prove it.”

So they're running as what dems want to be and blue maga keep trying to say they aren't

Okay, so you're just admitting you objectively don't care if OP violated the rules of the comm they were posting in and are only here to air unrelated grievances about the mod.

They clearly know and follow the rule about posting links to articles only, because every time I see and report a non-article, it's consistently removed shortly thereafter. I'm looking back through the comm's front page, and it's all articles.

It's the first rule of the first rule and is crystal clear.

PTB. We all know why it's getting removed, the mods want to protect transphobic Dems against legitimate criticism.

They clearly know and follow the rule about posting links to articles only, because every time I see and report a non-article, it's consistently removed shortly thereafter. I'm looking back through the comm's front page, and it's all articles.

Because they absolutely don't. Search their name and it becomes obvious. Hell ask them questions on the rules when they bring it up and they will say something they removed is okay then work backwards until they make up reasons outside the rules that make it okay to remove.

Hell they've gotten angry with me that I dared ask them to follow their own no blogs rule

Okay, so you're just admitting you objecgively don't care if OP violated the rules of the comm they were posting in and are only here to air unrelated grievances about the mod.

You've done how many edits to explain why it was fine for Jordan to remove out of nowhere while also blaming op of this post for not discussing with the comm. And as said before anything involving Jordan mod actions is them being an absolute power tripping bastard

They have a point on the world comm but none at all on the politics comm side. Then again the rules are written to basically make everything up to the mods decision

not familiar enough to judge whether 'blogger' is unfair but in any case she does appear to be a slopmonger as detailed here: https://theneedlenews.com/2026/09/erin-reeds-ai-journalism-career/

You've done how many edits to explain why it was fine for Jordan to remove out of nowhere

No.

My original comment said, functionally, that at worst "YDI" because it's a violation of the rule, and that at best (assuming what they're saying about being worked on by a proper team, being incorporated, etc. is true) that the correct course of action was to contact the mod first to clarify those things.

My original comment established from the get-go that either at worst the post should've been removed and stayed removed or at best that it toed the line so heavily that it was reasonable for a mod to have removed it and that it's on them to reach out to the mod to argue for reconsideration. That is, my original comment is explaining it wasn't "out of nowhere".

My first edit was having actually looked into the claims that they were making – namely that EITM is coordinated by some sort of team working as a company – and argued that that's false or at least has zero evidence presented in the OP or that I could find in the wild. This edit only exists because the OP seemingly made shit up about EITM to make their case look more credible, where evidence indicates EITM is just functionally a blog written by two people.

And finally, my second edit points out that it's objectively violating another rule entirely. This was its own edit because I actually assumed good faith of the OP at first and thought they weren't outright lying about the whole title thing. Thus, I didn't bother to look at /c/politics' rules around titles. Turns out, yeah, they just lied, there is a rule, and their title violated it completely.

It's pretty clear at this point that you're engaging in bad faith. You're portraying an attempt to be thorough and actually examine the OP's claims in good faith as somehow bending over backwards to defend the mod, and you expressly don't give a shit about the factual claims made in the OP.

Like, dude, if my goal was just "how do I defend the mod in this situation", do you really think I'd choose to assume that ridiculous title was a-okay because the OP said so, not even try checking the other rules, and focus solely on the merits of whether they violated Rule 2? No, because I went into this asking "If I were a mod in this community, would I have removed this post for violating Rule 2?" And the two original answers I came up with were basically 1) "Yes" and 2) "Yes, but I could see myself reinstating it if they messaged me and provided evidence that I was wrong about the nature of the source."

I'm aware of what a piece of shit Josh Turek is. Still false, and still doesn't make it not a violation of Rule 1 for failing to add any context or be more descriptive.

Like, dude, if my goal was just "how do I defend the mod in this situation", do you really think I'd choose to assume that ridiculous title was a-okay because the OP said so, not even try checking the other rules, and focus solely on the merits of whether they violated Rule 2? No, because I went into this asking "If I were a mod in this community, would I have removed this post for violating Rule 2?" And the two original answers I came up with were basically 1) "Yes" and 2) "Yes, but I could see myself reinstating it if they messaged me and provided evidence that I was wrong about the nature of the source

This has been the standard MO for world mods whenever Jordan is brought up so yes. The entire point is you're giving someone who deserves no benefit of the doubt for multiple reasons that benefit and now attacking those people who are tired of their continuous actions like this while also ignoring the context.

And this is still you blaming the poster for not groveling before Jordan

Although it still doesn't seem like you tried to message the mods before this for clarification or to try and appeal, which is the main point – namely that you're assuming transphobic bad faith without at least trying to talk with them first given your post at best toes the line.

Pointing out your claim of it being false title change is wrong because he is essentially a republican

I don't understand how Jordan still has defenders

Because there's a lot of people on his side politically and who believe in helping the Dems win by any means. I had a lib on here openly tell me that lying to promote a Dem is fine, and even mock me for correcting misinformation.

No I’m admitting most people are too ignorant to engage with politics intellectually and it’s the job of those who will to simplify the positions for them.

If the other side is going to stand lock step against us; our divisions will be exploited.

You win an election or you lose it. Intellectual honesty doesn’t get a vote multiplier.

Lol can’t wait to see what the “Honesty Senate” accomplishes.

Most of them are smart enough to not be so blatant about it. More often, it takes the form of pretending that they care about things like genocide, because they believe they can more effectively reach people on the left that way, compared to voicing their actual opinions. The reality is they only care about their tribe.

Suppressing a negative story about someone in their tribe is par for the course. "The ends justify the means."

This has been the standard MO for world mods whenever Jordan is brought up so yes.

Lmao, like lemmy.world mods are part of some cabal who circle the wagons around one mod.

I don't know if it's possible for you not to project an obsession with this one rando on the backwater of the Internet onto me, but:

• I went into this post not even knowing who the removing mod is. The post doesn't say, I didn't look, and I'm not chronically online enough to have made any assumptions. Your comment, after I'd already read the post and considered my response, was what told me this was Jordan.
• I barely know who Jordan is. I think I've ever interacted with them a few times, and that drama with them a while back (I think it had to do with them power tripping and being a Zionist? I can't remember) pretty much passed me by from what I can remember. I have no compelling baseline reason to want to defend them for anything they say or do.
• One thing I do vaguely remember about the drama is Jordan's power tripping being protected by the LW admins, which is maybe where you're getting the idea to blame the mods. In reality, a community I moderate and the one I care about the most, !vegan@lemmy.world, was the target of a power-tripping LW admin who was protected by the other admins. I've let that be a bygone, but I have no particular allegiance to the admin team, their actions, or who they choose to associate with. I leave them alone, they leave me alone, and that's been the status quo for I think over a year now.

TL;DR: I could not have given less of a shit who removed the post. I cared about what the OP wrote in their post, which was "The post was removed claiming a Rule 2 violation. I don't think it was a Rule 2 violation, and here's why."

PTB. World is a liberal shithole serving to reinforce hegemonic narratives and support fascism. The censorship of alternative news is fundamental to this project.

People shouldn't be blamed for breaking shitty, evil, arbitrary rules. That's just pathetic bootlicking... of of a lemmy comm/mod. jfc.

[Reed's] litany of errors in 2026 includes deadnaming and misgendering a competing trans journalist who broke a story for one of her competitors! This was seven months ago, and the deadname is still up as of writing.

This wasn’t just any story. It was Nate Zuke’s first article that we can find. Many of you have already read it: ‘She’d Never Changed Her Gender Marker. Kansas Invalidated Her License Anyway.’

It was excellent reporting; arguably one of the most important trans news stories written by a trans journalist this year.

And it was Erin Reed who deadnamed him to her audience of hundreds of thousands.

It is unclear how Erin Reed would have found Nate Zuke’s deadname without AI. As of Sep. 2026, we could find no bylines under his deadname, either at the outlet he published this story in, or anywhere else. We found nothing in his public presence that would connect him to his deadname. We also found no public presence under his deadname whatsoever.

Archived versions of Assigned Media’s coverage from the day it went live, as well as posts by other journalists tagging Nate Zuke who broke the story, show that this story was never published under any name other than ‘Nate Zuke’.

We checked across the internet, and used three different search engines. The only documented proof of the existence of anyone with that name is from public court records in a different state from where he is known to live, and where we have no reason to believe he has ever lived in.

One explanation is that this name was somewhere in the AI training database, and that it (accurately or not) attributed that name to Nate Zuke.

Another explanation is that an LLM hallucinated his gender, and made up a woman's name for him. This is a documented problem with some LLMs, with this error even appearing from cis people's names.

Either way, Reed published a trans man's deadname, real or imagined.

That's... Holy shit, ew.

Edit: Just want to say that I've been continuing to read this article on and off, and sections 6.1 to 6.4 are 100% evidence of extensive LLM usage, literally just copy–pasting in huge chunks of text. Even though EITM has only come to my attention recently, I'm really disappointed.

Lmao, like lemmy.world mods are part of some cabal who circle the wagons around one mod.

The power mods and admins absolutely do.

TL;DR: I could not have given less of a shit who removed the post. I cared about what the OP wrote in their post, which was "The post was removed claiming a Rule 2 violation. I don't think it was a Rule 2 violation, and here's why."

Yet you're upset with me calling out a ptb. I think you care more than you let on

Amazing they said nothing to the user pointing out how arbitrary the rule and then went to a different rule that was broken while still saying they should have discussed it with jordanlund before posting here

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/28832065

The fact that Jordan is STILL a moderator on lemmy.world tells you everything you need to know about lemmy.world.

This shit is pathetic.

https://lemmy.ca/post/61836381

I think the thing I despise about lemmy.world beyond Jordan and his toxic beliefs is this obsession with rules as if that negates the incredible amount of bias inherent to how the mods behave on world and politics.

They hide behind their rules as if it makes their moderation nonbiased which I find so stupid it is difficult to keep my head from exploding when I think about it.

What the hell kind of question is that? Why do you think a question like that can be answered with a rule perfectly? Do you understand how toxic and flawed of a view that is of things that cannot be decided by black and white rules?

Jordan consistently acts like a child in his moderation, behaving in immature, emotionally charged ways, he frequently breaks the rules when it feels good to him and there are no repercussions.

Yet you’re upset with me calling out a ptb. I think you care more than you let on

100%

I don't think people really want a community full of blog spam. And if you do, you can make one.

As I've said before, and will continue to say, blog sites, INCLUDING SUBSTACK, are NOT allowed.

Just like YouTube, just like Twitter, just like any other form of unvetted social media.

Are there serious journalists using those platforms? Sure, but the signal to noise level is too high, so we don't allow ANY of it.

Want to get the message out there? Link to a serious news site, not a blog, not a video, not a tweet.

I'm not going to engage in "Buh, buh, you allowed THEIR blogsite, why not miiiiiiiiiine!!?!??! I'm different! I'm SPECIAL!"

No, you aren't. No blog sites. Full stop. NO BLOGS!

Nope, if it were an actual news article and not a blog it would be fine. Read the rules of the group.

Honestly him removing the post in op isn't a surprise. What was when looking at modlog was them unbanning this wonderful user who is currently insulting Trans people in other comms after doing the same before their ban in unironicly another post about dems being anti trans

https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&modId=1499846&userId=20483952

https://lemmy.world/comment/26485317

https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=20483952

Weird how substack was okay then (https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/dccc-releases-its-first-anti-trans) 🤔

Hey they're finally here proving why everyone has issues with them https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/28840410

K, you missed one https://lemmy.world/post/53482739 although the politics rules say you can have them so 🤷

So change rule 2?

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading.

Thanks! I'll nab it! People think mods obsessively monitor the feeds, we don't, we have lives. We monitor reports and the mod queue.

People think mods obsessively monitor the feeds, we don't, we have lives. We monitor reports and the mod queue.

Thank you for both proving ops point, your bias and how little the rules matter.

So news that's not reported on by corporate media is just not allowed to be discussed.

Fucking loser.

The fact that you're on, what? Your THIRD account because you keep catching bans tells you everything you need to know. 😉

https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=4870622

https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=23881363

Oh no, I enforce the clearly written rules! LOL. Someone is a loser here.

and he's someone who recently was featured on this community.

There are more sites than just "corporate media" that are allowed. We just don't allow sites that have zero editorial control.

Any dipshit can start a Substack. That doesn't make it "news".

Bias would be going "OK, I agree with this substack so I'm going to allow it."

That is not what is happening here. The content of the Substack is irrelevant, we don't allow Substack. When we see it, it gets removed.

Same for Twitter, same for Youtube.

Does stuff get missed? Sure, we have jobs and lives and need to sleep.

When it gets brought to our attention? Gone.