Good to go. Ty bakers.
Outgoing new baker, you may want to consider giving the ok to incoming baker to remove the following from notables:
>>5730341 "Anti-semitic, its a trick we always use it"
As many anons said lb, it's posted many times a day every day. This is usually indicative of shill posts, which we generally don't include in notables. But it's your call.
Are you saying that posts which are posted again and again, bread after bread, day after day, fit our guidelines of sauced, relevant, and novel?
It's bakers discretion, we only remove illegal content. Bakers are also expected to respond to legitimate anon feedback and to make evidence- and logic-based decisions, including the consideration of hash history evidence when provided.
But we don't bow to shill kvetching.
Free speech needs room to breathe.
Ty for stepping up new baker.
What qualifies as a bot?
Only demonstrated spam is banned.
As in post volume and repetition.
We don't ban content for content's sake.
>BV screens bakers
No, we don't. Anyone can bake.
What we do is report to anons whether a given baker has a history of baking or not.
If a baker demonstrates, over time, a pattern of such dereliction of basic baking duties as to qualify as a shill, transparently for all to see, then BO/BV will let anons know it is that "baker" and deny them the bake.
But we do not "screen" based on POV or content.
I'm aware, anon. I've been on all day for it.
Preserving the integrity of the process – of our free speech core and the measures we employ to preserve it – is more important than a day of shill posts making it into notables.
It's good that you anons express your views for what you think should or shouldn't be noted. It all exists in the record of each bread. The more either side of the debate is consistent with evidence and logic, the better it will hold up to downstream scrutiny.
It's also good that we have bakers that represent a variety of POV's. We'd all hope that bakers respect the expectation to focus notables on sauced, relevant, and novel posts, but baker's discretion partly serves to encourage anons to take the time to bake so that when those edge calls are to be made, you're the one on to make it the way you'd like to see it made.
We try only to post hashes of obvious shills, where the post content is spam-level repetitive, myopic in subject matter, and devoid of novel content contribution. We don't post them just to satisfy turf war requests.
>and exclude potentially controversial truths about Israels crimes and continued corruption of the United States?
When you see a legitimate post of sauced, relevant, novel content being excluded by baker over suspected content bias, then yes, anons should speak up about that.
Can you post an example where that's occurred?