Policy on "doxxing" (Effective July 2, 2022)
What precisely constitutes "doxxing" is a contentious argument and can vary depending on application and context.
Freedom Publishers Union explicitly defines "doxxing" as:
The release of private or personally identifiable information about an individual, individuals or group, by publication or any other means of dissemination, that has not already been made available in the public domain, prior.
Freedom Publishers Union, or any other authorized party, hereafter known as "we" or "us", DOES NOT "dox" individuals through the release of information by publication or any other means of dissemination, that has not already been made available in the public domain, prior.
We understand and respect the sensitivities present with the release of information by publication or any other means of dissemination, which can be used by third-parties to personally identify and target individuals.
We, at all times, consider the implications of the release of information by publication or any other means of dissemination, to individuals associated with Freedom Publishers Union and any other authorized party.
Additionally - and more importantly - we, at all times, consider the implications of the release of information by publication or any other means of dissemination, to individuals attached to, or could be personally identified from, the information.
1D. Publication, dissemination and redaction
If information is provided to us, by any source, directly or indirectly, and we determine the information is private and it has not already been published in the public domain, prior, we will withhold the private information and/or make necessary redaction to obfuscate identifiable portions to protect the privacy of individuals.
If information is provided to us, by any source, directly or indirectly, and we determine the information is private and has already been published in the public domain, prior, we will assess the information to determine necessity of its publication or dissemination.
We WILL NOT be held liable for publication or dissemination of personally identifiable information that has already been published in the domain by parties that are not associated with us.
If we believe any information that has already been published in the public domain is critical to providing accurate context, we will freely (re)publish the information only after we are satisfied it is within the constraints of our editorial policies, collectively.
If we publish or disseminate personally identifiable information that has not already been published in the public domain, we will make all possible attempts to contact the individual(s) for explicit approval to do so, prior.
If explicit approval cannot be provided, we will make necessary redaction to obfuscate identifiable portions to protect the privacy of individuals.
Policy on content removal (Effective July 2, 2022)
Freedom Publishers Union, hereafter known as "we", strictly adheres to our editorial policies.
Ultimately, we have an obligation to operate within the constraints of US law (where our web servers are located).
We assess all content removal requests, individually, and make decisions on each case based on the credibility of the request.
We will ONLY remove content if we determine we have breached our own editorial policies, collectively, the content is in violation of US law or we have been ordered to do so, by law.
General content removal requests submitted on the basis persons simply 'do not like' the content will be denied, without appeal.
General editorial and publishing standards
Freedom Publishers Union is committed to maintaining strict editorial and publishing standards, and will always ensure our processes remain transparent.
We rely on our sources for the purposes of research, data gathering, details comparison and fact checking, while promoting source diversity.
We use all of the information we pull from our sources to create a premise for our own publications, ensuring truth and accuracy remain top priority.
If a specific source is not listed it does not mean that we consider the information to be false or misleading.
It means that we take additional steps to cross-check the information to ensure truth and accuracy.
-  Trusted
-  Always reliable
-  Usually reliable
-  Requires fact checking
- [DS] Document/Statistics source
- [P] State-sponsored propaganda
(In alphabetical order)
- AAP 
- ABC News (AU) 
- ABC News (USA) 
- AFP 
- Airwars [DS]
- Al Jazeera 
- Antiwar [DS]
- Associated Press 
- BBC News 
- Bloomberg 
- CBS News 
- China Daily [P]
- CNBC 
- CNN 
- Cryptome [DS]
- Deutsch Well 
- Financial Review 
- Financial Times 
- Fox News 
- Global Times [P]
- MarketWatch 
- MSNBC 
- Politico 
- Reuters 
- RT [P]
- Sky News Australia 
- Sputnik [P]
- Der Spiegel 
- The Australian 
- The Conversation 
- The Economist 
- The Epoch Times 
- The Guardian 
- The Hill 
- The Intercept 
- The Japan Times 
- The LA Times 
- The New York Times 
- The Sydney Morning Herald 
- The Wall Street Journal 
- The Washington Post 
- TRT World 
- Wikileaks [DS]
- Xinhua [P]
We rely on our careful selection of sources as our prime basis, as many of them are among the few outlets that still employ their own reporters, so their stories aren't going to be 'rip-and-read' from a wire service or web aggregate service that simply drops the breaking headlines.
These sources are almost always guaranteed to report with an 'eye-witness' point of view, not some third-party being re-quoted repeatedly.
Because of their private news teams, they tend to each pick up something different about a story - slightly different details and perspective.
Furthermore, because they aren't in 'first to print' mode full-time, they tend to publish detailed follow-up stories within 48 hours that more thoroughly sort the facts and clarify verified information from rumors.
If all sources are reporting the same core facts then it is most probable to be true, or at least perceived to be true.
We use internal editorial categorization techniques to identify liberal and conservative bias indicators for sources, to determine if these publications echo the same core facts as our master sources.
Then we can make an assessment to conclude that everyone saw the same thing.
We then look for the starkest differences between the baseline, liberal and conservative sources, and are what we call bias indicators.
Sometimes we use or adapt information from sources or individuals not formally associated with any of the sources listed, calling these outside sources.
When we use outside sources we take the information and attempt to support it with information from our master sources.
The entire process is not strict as we must allow for flexibility.
We are confident at the time of going to press all information that we publish remains accurate to the best of our abilities and our editorial procedures permit.
Freedom Publishers Union is always open to challenge and scrutiny from our readers.
If you believe we have published inaccurate or defamatory information we recommend that you contact us so we can rectify any issues we determine to be legitimate.