There's no evidence afaik for extensive Russian meddling in the Dutch elections. Our electoral system makes it difficult for foreign meddling to have any extensive impact. The far-right hasn't really grown much here, it consolidated into a single party. They're also not explicitly pro-Russia either.
They're stuck in a coalition government with three other parties and really haven't made much of an impact at all.
Yes congratulations, you've discovered they're using Substack. This was already addressed and not in dispute? . It doesn't support your argument, because:
Substack is not a blogging platform. It's more like Wordpress in that it can host blogs, but doesn't exclusively do so, and this website is clearly not a blog.
This is the only reference to Substack on the entire website. And this footer isn't what makes a website a "blog". I'd wager that if you'd have blocked this footer using uBlock or something you wouldn't be able to really tell it's built on Substack.
The links listed don't lead to other accounts, instead they lead to static pages about Substack's about page or their privacy policy.
Dropsitenews is operating through their own domain via Squarespace.
Dropsitenews has several independent journalists and editors working for them, and is a news organisation, not a random blog. Their own about page explains this pretty clearly, and other websites (including MBFC) agree with that.
Their website does not look functionally different from a news website not built on Substack. The only "functional difference" (and I'm really stretching the definition of the word 'functional' here) is the footer you've linked that mentions Substack.
I have to reiterate here: nobody is asking you to pick-and-choose what Substack "accounts" to allow or not. I actually fully agree with you that doing that would be a bit of an undue burden, similar to not choosing which Twitter accounts to allow. But that's just simply not how Dropsitenews or Substack work.
Listen, I'm trying to help you here to either clarify the rules or apply them more consistently. You're getting a lot of flak now because you're not applying the rule as written, but through an publicly unknown interpretation where anything built using Substack is (frankly inexplicably) also banned. If that's how you want to moderate, fine, but clarify it in the rules.
Still, I have to recommend the tried and tested method of white/blacklisting (or allow/denylisting as it's often called these days). If someone puts up a new post, check the list with Ctrl-F for the domain of the post. If it's in the allowlist, allow the post, if it's in the denylist, remove it. Dead simple, takes seconds to do. If it's not listed, open the website and make a determination if it should be allowed. If so, add to the allowlist, otherwise add to the denylist and list the reason for denial. Takes a minute or so, maybe a couple minutes at worst. Put all this in a publicly viewable Google doc/sheet/whatever and link it in the sidebar. Total transparancy, dead simple to execute and basically impossible to argue against. If you want to put in even less effort, have posters submit why a domain should be allowlisted (you can put specific requirements there like a link to the MBFC rating or whatever) so you can just review the reasons and either allowlist or denylist the domain.
This still lets you blanket-ban Twitter/Facebook/Medium etc... for the stated reason, but helps avoid these issues where you are inconsistently applying the rules and banning a legitimate news organisation.
Then they're welcome to pony up for a domain registration
https://www.dropsitenews.com/ is their domain that they've registered through Squarespace?? Hello?
There are legit journalists on Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube too... we don't allow links to those sites EITHER.
False equivalence. Substack is more similar to Wordpress than it is to Twitter or Medium.
This is NO DIFFERENT. We aren't going through an entire platform, account by account, picking and choosing.
But it is different, you've just elected to plug your ears regarding any and all evidence to the contrary. You don't have to "pick and choose accounts", they have their own domain and no other "accounts" on Substack are accessible through it. It's completely isolated.
This entire charade could easily be solved using a simple domain whitelist/blacklist method, yet you've decided that using that simple solution is too difficult, despite plenty of mod teams using this method due to its transparancy and ease of moderation.
Your argumentation so far has been completely detached from the reality here. You are presenting things as facts that are easily refuted by taking a 1-minute look at the website. If you can't even manage that, then I can't help you here.
Substack is not a blogging platform.
Try again. Substack themselves say they're a newsletter site. It can host blogs but it is not a blog hosting site.
You're also not addressing the fact that Dropsitenews is not a blog by any definition of the word "blog".
Substack is not a blogging platform. You can host a blog using Substack, but not every site built using Substack is a blog.
Dropsitenews is clearly not a blog. That should be immediately evident if you open the website. The about-page also clearly explains how they are an independent news organization with reputable journalists working for it. Even MBFC classifies them as a news organization.
If your argument is "it's a substack website so it's a blog, but a completely identical-looking website that's not built using substack isn't a blog, so it's allowed", then you're not arguing along the lines of rule 1, you're arguing along the lines of an unwritten rule that is supposed to help reinforce rule 1. If so, it should be explained in the sidebar. The post as-is does not violate rule 1 in any reasonable interpretation. If you have a different argumentation as to why Dropsitenews is a blog, you should provide it so that people know what to expect from the mod team.
This is a frankly bizarre take. BLM is a protest aimed at the government (specifically the police apparatus). They already investigate gang criminality (your link specifically mentions that the Chicago PD is investigating). So as far as BLM is concerned, that's the appropriate response and the government is doing its job? What is there to protest here, it's not like gangs are going to go "oh shit look BLM is protesting, better stop all our criminal activities". You should feel sympathetic to them not protesting this, because the protest would be heard by people who already agree and by people who don't care (see your own "preaching to the choir"-argument).
BLM protests disproportionate police action usually aimed at black people, because it's not how they think the government should act, nor do they react appropriately afterwards. That's their pretty singular purpose.
Your argument boils down to a strange combination of whataboutism and a strange attempt at gatekeeping "standing up for the civil rights of minorities", which I'm not sure if I've ever seen someone else attempt tbh.
It's literally what Jordanlund cited as the reason for removal.
Sure, but that's not the hate being addressed here. Those were comments specifically about there being a black guy as a main character.
The fact that it's a buggy barely playable mess is par for the course for Ubisoft.
Fair enough. It's just that what you seemed to describe as a nonbinary transgender just sounds like nonbinary to me. No reason why they can't want to change their genitalia, no?
Pardon my perhaps limited understanding, but "trans" quite literally means "opposite", so transgender == "opposite gender". "cis" means "same", so "same gender".
Both terms seem to imply that at the very least you fit in the two-gender construct, whereas nonbinary rejects that construct entirely. So I'm fairly certain that a "nonbinary transgender" can't really exist?
Then again everything is not so black and white and labels rarely fully fit, so perhaps it's a case of two partially fitting labels then?
Morocco and Egypt are pretty well developed.
What do you think a bog is?