The other day it labelled the internet archive as biased towards centre-left. The internet archive - it's like saying a stack of blank printer paper is biased. Beyond useless.
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
103 points (100.0% liked)
Lemmy.world Support
3369 readers
17 users here now
Lemmy.world Support
Welcome to the official Lemmy.world Support community! Post your issues or questions about Lemmy.world here.
This community is for issues related to the Lemmy World instance only. For Lemmy software requests or bug reports, please go to the Lemmy github page.
This community is subject to the rules defined here for lemmy.world.
To open a support ticket
You can also DM https://lemmy.world/u/lwreport or email [email protected] (PGP Supported) if you need to reach our directly to the admin team.
Follow us for server news 🐘
Outages 🔥
https://status.lemmy.world/
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean reality has a left wing bias. I'd like to see someone cute their real world experiences and get the boy to say reality is left center.
good point.
the internet: famously devoid of content.
Totally agree.
As a temporary measure, I have blocked that bot from my feed.
Same, it does wonders.
Is that thing still around? I thought it had been removed based on the feedback
It has been removed from some communities, but still in some.
Only one I saw removing it was news, even then it sounded more like removed until blows over
still around, the negative feedback is baseless so far
Mods already said they won't remove it because they use it as a quick basis if articles get reported.
Which is kinda dumb because you could automate that client side without a community wide bot.
If they wanna have it, I'd rather have it link to a proper media aggregate site like ground news which combine both source reporting and published bias info from multiple sources:
Hi,
we have already a link to ground news, and we try to get api access to other aggregators, but all have reall high prices or just dont have the wanted data. ( We dont want to scrape it as it could get us in legal troubles )
Thanks for your suggestion.
Just block it if you don’t like it?
Something so universally destructive to understanding is not an opt-out feature of any competent system.
“universally destructive to understanding”
So what you’re saying is that no one derives any use from the bot? Wow, with that kind of omniscience, I’d expect we could just ask you to judge every news source. Win-win for everyone I suppose if you’re up for it.
Now “generally destructive” would probably be better wording for us mere mortals, but stills seems to be a wildly generalized statement. Or maybe “inadequately precise” would be more realistic, but then that really takes the wind out of the sails to ban it, doesn’t?
what are you basing that critique off of?
His opinion as he can not provide any source than "trust me bro".
Why did you comment? If you followed your own logic then you would have just blocked me instead.
To be serious, I think it's much better for the community if we do not allow misinformation bots to spam every post.
Because this is the first thing I think I’ve seen you post and blocking everything you disagree with seems sort of stupid?
I think the bot has issues, but I hardly agree that it’s posting misinformation. Incomplete? Imperfect? You bet. But that’s not “misinformation” in any commonly understood meaning. I think the intent of providing additional context on information sources is laudable.
As someone with such a distaste for misinformation, how would you suggest fixing it? That’s a much more useful discussion than “BAN THE THING I PERSONALLY AND SUBJECTIVELY THINK IS BAD!!!!” You obviously think misinformation is a problem, so why not suggest a solution?
Currently the bot's media ratings come from just some guy, who is unaccountable and has an obvious rightwing bias.
If I were to suggest a fix, as you so rudely demanded, I would suggest making the ratings instead come from an open sourced and crowdsourced system. A system where everyone could give their inputs and have transparency, similar to an upvote/downvote system.
Such a system would take many hours to design and maintain, it is not something I personally am willing to contribute, nor would I ask it of any volunteers. This is why I believe the cleanest, easiest, and best solution is to simply ban the bot.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
Hi,
please block the bot if you disagree with it. We are investigating on the constant (bot like downvoting) as this could be against our TOS.
Just that you know, the bot is made by the LW team.
Thanks
Wow I had no idea the LW team made this bot, how disappointing.
Do the consistant downvotes on the bot give you any concern that you are making a mistake here?
I always thought of LW as the "default" sub here on Lemmy, but all of this: the rightwing bot itself, 'please block the bot instead of downvoting', the thinly veiled threats of ban; all of it is pretty strong evidence you are attempting to cultivate an ideological echo chamber here.
Anyway, I'll continue to do my civic duty and downvote the misinformation bot whenever I happen to see it.
Thanks
Shitty thing gets downvoted so it must be bots doing the downvoting and not just normal members downvoting said shitty thing. Pretty interesting take up there.
The only thing we currently see is. Bot bad BAN!! BAN!! Its a threat to our democracy!!!! BOT BAD BECAUSE IT SAID MY FAVORITE NEWS SITE IS BAD!!!!!!
We dont see real feedback, just rants about MBFC and this doesnt get us anywhere. ( See your post )
Wow you continue to surprise me, I would have never expected this kind of communication to come publically from a mod.
I think I have made my criticisms of MBFC fairly clear, and your characterization of my criticisms is an obvious strawman.
But since I have your attention, let me try to rephrase the problem: Lemmy was built on principles of open source, transparency, freedom of speech, and community input. The MBFC bot does not follow any of these principles.
In it's current form, the MBFC bot is a stain on the integrity of LW. I urge you to make a change.
The community has largely made their voice heard on the subject, as evidenced by the large number of downvotes on the bot and on your posts here. I urge you to listen to them.
*admin not just mod
I like the MBFC bot. If you don't like it, you can block it. And, you don't speak for me or the community.
Just that i write it to you too:
We give you freedom to block anyone, anytime and on your disgression.
Your criticism is just as said a loud cry about how bad mbfc is in your eyes.
We urgently making changes but if those people who just complain and do not research and make informed change requests to us. We zse all of our resources just to tell you we are discussing it with the news and world community mods what other thing can we add and other things, like the idea of open source the bot etc.
The votes are just the common ones. That arent blocking it, some even vote manipulation.
I DO NOT say mbfc is allmighty god, and makes mistakes, thus we added a link to ground.news to let you have multiple opinions.
You keep suggesting that I am uninformed and unresearched, so please correct me if I got any of the facts wrong.
You keep suggesting that my criticism is just a loud cry, but this is just hand waving the problem away. You have failed to directly address any of my concerns.
To add to my list of cocerns, here is a new one: Have you or any other LW mods/admins been paid by MBFC?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
. We are investigating on the constant (bot like downvoting) as this could be against our TOS.
I'm sorry down voting a bot is against TOS? Wtf???
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›