It seems HN at least thinks Breitbart is much worse, if we compare the deadness ratios of the submissions: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=breitbart.com vs https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=jacobinmag.com

There are lots of jacobinmag.com submissions with lively discussions in comments as well, and not that many complaints about the reporting (comparable to the usual media sources).

They're like Breitbart because they disagree with Democratic Party consensus, not for any other reason. Everything that doesn't agree with this week's party line (even if that involves denouncing last weeks party line) is like Breitbart.

This might be a symptom of jacobinmag being less well known. I had never heard of it prior to this post. I also think the discussion here is civil and most people seem to agree that the banning is justified. My experience with breitbart is that the articles are extremely flame-war-y

I haven't seen any solid case for the banning other than "sites shouldn't publish information which is embarrassing to NATO's efforts in Ukraine." Not one person has raised a factual dispute with anything published at either site.

Who is most people agree? There’s not a large sample size as you said. Left wing sites don’t have the same billionaire funding strategy as many major right wing sites including Breitbart. Breitbart doing lower effort grifting half the time is the opposite of Jacobin at the very least being clear the people running it are doing it with passion and their actual belief.

Where is the relation? Where is Breitbart’s equal level of hard hitting in depth pieces? Do you not think Jacobin not being heavily funded by right wing billionaire and so on makes it not possible to be the left wing version of Breitbart. Which is funded in that way?