New rule on Aggregators/Forwarders:
from jordanlund@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 10 Oct 2024 23:29
https://lemmy.world/post/20721206
from jordanlund@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 10 Oct 2024 23:29
https://lemmy.world/post/20721206
We’ve had some trouble recently with posts from aggregator links like Google Amp, MSN, and Yahoo.
We’re now requiring links go to the OG source, and not a conduit.
In an example like this, it can give the wrong attribution to the MBFC bot, and can give a more or less reliable rating than the original source, but it also makes it harder to run down duplicates.
So anything not linked to the original source, but is stuck on Google Amp, MSN, Yahoo, etc. will be removed.
#world
threaded - newest
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
May the most useful the bots been
LMFAO
What if the Yahoo article is because the original is paywalled?
You can use an archive link to get around a paywall, that’s always been allowed.
But that’s literally rule 2.
dont use archive to get around paywalls…
Next, you’ll be telling me that UniversalMonk violates rule 7 pretty much every day.
Archive links are allowed, and, in fact, if you submit a link from the web interface, it offers to generate an archive link for you.
I specifically clarified that with the Admins when they asked us to crack down on copy pasting full articles.
So then the rule is wrong where it says do not do this on paywalls specifically
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.sdf.org/pictrs/image/79c42148-284b-409a-aaa0-dcd530ae0dd5.png">
I’m really curious what the response to this is going to be.
If only there was a bot for that.
Betting like my question about if there’s updates on how they’re gonna deal any mod issues, will just be ignored or have a token response.
Like we reviewed the time period after all the issues occurred and found none so it’s all good
Haha, wow you guys really need to work on your PR
There are so many good reasons to block aggregators and you picked the worst one, your bot that no one likes.
<img alt="" src="https://walledgarden.xyz/pictrs/image/cf7f0bbb-1396-4c33-9e8a-4ea976e9e163.gif">
Yeah, seriously, aggregators are annoying as fuck, they’re link rot waiting to happen, it’s impossible to tell the quality of the source from the URL…
And the problem is of course the MBFC bot. It’s a change for good, but this is what we’re going with? They chose the one line that would get them backlash for an objective improvement.
MSN is cancerous and was barely usable the last few times I’ve been bamboozled into going there. Yahoo is the same, just easier to avoid. I honestly haven’t run into the Google one.
They literally add nothing to the internet as far as I can tell.
MSN is one of the biggest piece of shit middlemen I’ve seen on the Internet. Good riddance, and to be absolutely clear, I’m glad the mods are doing this.
Glad just also wish it was for reasons other than the shit bot can’t handle it.
Ffs just say it’s because they’re terrible and take away from the actual source not our shit bot has issues finding the actual source
Is that the bot that says how reliable a source is? I blocked that one like a day after they started using it
Really? That’s your compelling argument?
It’s to difficult for your bot, that’s universally hated in this community, to work with?
The bot is instituted by the Admins and with good reason.
But yes, this has been the problem that pops up recently. The bot sees “Oh, MSN, they’re reliable…” but the OG source is not.
When did this happen? The admins instituted it for !politics, and the admins changed their minds about having it for !news and friends, but wanted to keep it in !politics?
What’s the reason?
It’s Rooki’s pet project, and so it has to stay.
Heightened misinformation through the election season.
Misinformation like the website MBFC, which equates the level of factual accuracy of The Guardian to Breitbart?
No it’s okay, I checked the rating for MBFC on MBFC and they rated themselves very well.
Qnr that damn left-leaning, uh, Associated Press.
No, no, you see, they have a left-center bias because they… Report the news factually and dispassionately. Seriously, this article titled “AP exclusive: Before Trump job, Manafort worked to aid Putin” is cited by MBFC as “utiliz[ing] moderate-loaded language in their headlines in their political coverage”.
They specifically cite: “However, in some articles, the author demonstrates bias through loaded emotional language such as this: “PUSHED Ukrainian officials to investigate BASELESS corruption allegations against the Bidens.””
Yeah, no fucking shit it was completely baseless and no fucking shit Trump pushed for this. How dare they present reality the way it actually is instead of fucking both-sidesing an obvious lie. Clearly left-center bias.
MBFC does NOT equate the Guardian with Breitbart:
mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
Overall, we rate The Guardian as Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last five years.
mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/
Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, the publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda, as well as numerous false claims.
If you check their list of questionable sources, Breitbart is listed, the Guardian is not:
mediabiasfactcheck.com/fake-news/
Example of a “failed” fact check for The Guardian:
This was an article entirely about stress and anxiety. Ignoring that stress and anxiety have physical effects on the body, the only way someone could conclude that the article was about like, toxic apartments and not stress and anxiety was if they failed to read the article at all and instead just read the headline and made up an article in their head.
Such obviously agenda driven nitpicky bullshit is why people don’t respect the bot.
Correlation is not causation. I had my first heart attack when I was renting. It wasn’t BECAUSE I was a renter. You literally cannot say someone is experiencing stress because they’re a renter, that’s a stretch.
They could be experiencing stress by their overall socio-economic status which is also a reason they are renting, not the other way around.
I had my 2nd heart attack as a home owner. Again, my status as a renter or owner has nothing to do with it.
“Renters experience stress and anxiety over renting to the point of illness” is not code for “and homeowners don’t feel any and are all perfectly healthy.” The only way to read it that way is if you’re trying to manufacture “fact checks” (or defend them, I guess). Same energy:
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/07fbd05c-054e-448e-a227-6bab2465762c.webp">
Oh, do you think that if the article about stress from renting mentioned that financial problems contribute to that then it would make that fact check unfair?
Because it does.
Again, correlation is not causation.
They aren’t stressed because they’re spending 41% of their income on housing, they’re stressed because of their low socio economic status which causes them to spend 41% of their income on housing.
It’s a symptom, not a cause.
Again, they’re putting the cart before the horse and MBFC correctly points out what they’re trying to say is factually false.
This is actually a great example for how the bot actively discourages critical thinking, as it seems you have started from your conclusion (MBFC is correct), worked backwards, and apparently have not even read the article or anything I’ve said in response to you.
Wow, I wonder if the article mentioned any other factors, like no-fault evictions and poorly maintained apartments, in the second paragraph?
You keep talking about there being other factors like that wasn’t entirely what the article was about. Furthermore, almost every single one of those statements was about what advocacy organizations are claiming. Reporting what they are saying is factually inaccurate? Come off it.
Again, those are stressors caused by their lower socioeconomic status, not because they are renters. They are renters BECAUSE of their status, and are stressed by their status. They are NOT stressed because they are renters.
Trying to spin it the other way is why the story is, correctly, marked as false.
…howstuffworks.com/…/10-correlations-that-are-not…
For clarity, your defense of MBFC’s rating is that anxiety over rising rent costs outpacing wages (leading to more people spending more of their income on rent), worries about no fault eviction (which only happens if you rent), and stress from poor quality housing (which again is mostly a problem for renters, because homeowners can deal with it how and when they please), is somehow completely unconnected to the fact these people are renting?
Yeah, I guess it’s technically true that they could have rented a castle or a luxury apartment instead. But it’s completely irrelevant when talking about the effects of housing insecurity on large swathes of the populace, and trying to spin it as “The Guardian says renting is bad for your health, negative points!!” is outright dishonest.
No, I’m saying them being renters is at the same level as all the other problems. They face a lot of shit because of their poor economic status, and that causes them stress, but one of the things they face is their economic status forces them to rent.
Renting doesn’t cause the stress, it’s caused by the same thing that causes them stress. The root cause is lower socio economic status. Everything flows from that.
Cool, you have gone so far into the weeds that this no longer even resembles the original fact check, which was:
Survey: did housing worries make you feel sick in the past year?
About 1/4th of renters: yes
The Guardian: article focusing entirely on the stress renters face
MBFC: if you only read the headline this article is very misleading!!
Jordan, please look at the ‘Factual Reporting’ metric. They consider both of them to be ‘MIXED’, and as @Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone correctly points out, the sorts of few-and-far-between “fact checks” performed on The Guardian are complete nitpicks, while Breitbart is outright a disinformation outlet, peddling climate denialism, anti-vaxx, and other things that make it – based on what you said earlier – a source that isn’t credible enough to be posted to this very community.
The Guardian is much more factually accurate than “MIXED”, and Breitbart is much less factually accurate than “MIXED”, yet somehow they elevate Breitbart while dragging The Guardian’s credibility through the mud.
(To be clear, though, I still think what you guys are doing with this change is a huge improvement.)
That’s not the overall rating though, which is why Breitbart is Questionable and the Guardian is not.
Jordan, please elaborate: in what world does The Guardian have “MIXED” factual reporting and have “MEDIUM CREDIBILITY”? I really want to know why you think either of those ratings even remotely comport with reality.
(Also, “Questionable” is way, way too lenient for Breitbart.)
It’s even worse when you compare their final comments/summaries…
I mean, it’s all right there on the page:
“Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last five years.”
With cited examples:
“Failed Fact Checks
The proportion of lung cancer cases only diagnosed after a visit to an A&E ranges from 15% in Guildford and Waverley in Surrey to 56% in Tower Hamlets and Manchester. – Inaccurate
Private renting is making millions of people ill. – False
“The number of children needing foster care has risen by 44% during the coronavirus pandemic, creating a “state of emergency,” a children’s charity said.” – False
915 children admitted with malnutrition in Cambridge hospitals between 2015 and 2020. There were 656 similar admissions at Newcastle hospitals and 656 at the Royal Free London hospitals. – False
Nine percent of parents surveyed say their children have started self-harming in response to the cost of living crisis. – False”
Medium Credibility stems from this:
“In review, story selection favors the left but is generally factual. They utilize emotionally loaded headlines such as “The cashless society is a con – and big finance is behind it” and “Trump back-pedals on Russian meddling remarks after an outcry.” The Guardian typically utilizes credible sources such as thoughtco.com, gov.uk., and factually mixed sources such as HuffPost and independent.co.uk.”
So, yeah, biased headlines, “factually mixed sources”.
Numerous?? It cites five over the past five years, and they’re small errors that don’t change the overall point of the article and that to my understanding The Guardian later corrected. You have to know that the amount of articles The Guardian has put out in five days – let alone five years – turns that figure into a rounding error.
Please explain how they could possibly have the same accuracy rating as Breitbart.
It cites 5, numerous means there are many more, but these are the cited examples.
They don’t have the same accuracy as Breitbart, again, Breitbart is Questionable and is on their list of fake news sources, the Guardian is not.
Then why does it list them on the same tier for “Factual Accuracy”? It calls the ranking “Factual Accuracy”, as in literally the extent to which they get facts right. And those are “MIXED” for both sources.
Because there’s more to a rating than factual accuracy.
For example:
breitbart.com/…/chris-wallace-harris-has-plateaue…
“Chris Wallace: Harris Has ‘Plateaued’ — Trump Is Now a Slight Favorite”
Yeah, that’s factually accurate. Chris Wallace did, in fact, say that.
“I’m hearing this from top Republicans and top Democrats, that Harris seems to have stalled out a bit in the last couple of weeks. You know, she had a great rollout, great convention, very successful debate, but she seemed to have plateaued. One top Republican said two weeks ago, I would’ve said that she was a slight favorite. He said today I’d say Trump is a slight favorite.”
He was quoting some un-named source, he didn’t make that assertation himself, which makes the headline dishonest, but those words did come out of Wallaces mouth.
mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/
Really weird it is rated “Reliable” when the New York Times wrote and reported on literal fake news weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which manufactured consent for an illegal invasion and overthrow of Iraq and killing literally MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
On what planet is the newspaper of the establishment of the New York elite, literally wall street, “Left” I don’t think they support putting all the corporate board members in prison and establishing workers co-ops and replacing the neoliberal status quo with socialism.
You don’t have to go back 20 years. They also committed a fairly big oopsie, not that long ago.
The Guardian: I don’t think this one article about renters from 2020 proves its case very well. Personally, I’m not convinced. MIXED
New York Times: You really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies? I don’t think so.
The New York Times is a special class of paper called a “Newspaper of Record” until or unless that changes, nobody will question their reliability.
simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record
Oops?
no that’s different…
Nevermind the fact that they still haven’t retracted the probably false ‘Screams without Words’ article literally written by a member of the IDF with little to no reporting experience.
Your language around the mbfc website makes it seem like you’re involved with them.
Please don’t turn it on for the Portland sub.
Don’t forget how highly they ranked Radio Free Asia
I don’t hate Radio Free Asia as much as some people, but even I recognize that MBFC is on crack when talking about it compared to – as I keep bringing up – The Guardian.
The MBFC Credibility Rating for RFA is “HIGH CREDIBILITY”, while for The Guardian, it’s “MEDIUM CREDIBILITY”. For factual reporting, RFA gets “HIGH” while The Guardian gets “MIXED” – which is two ranks down from RFA and is – again – on the same level as Breitbart. Meanwhile, didn’t RFA run an anti-China story using a picture from a Reddit thread as their only source?
So it will be removed after the election, right?
Lol no then it’s shown it’s worth and has to stay
In what way does having the MediaBiasFactCheck bot help with misinformation? It’s not very accurate, probably less than the average Lemmy reader’s preexisting knowledge level. People elsewhere in these comments are posting specific examples, in a coherent, respectful fashion.
Most misinformation clearly comes in the form of accounts that post a steady stream of “reliable” articles which don’t technically break the rules, and/or in bad-faith comments. You may well be doing plenty of work on that also, I’m not saying you’re not, but it doesn’t seem from the outside like a priority in the way that the bot is. What is the use case where the bot ever helped prevent some misinformation? Do you have an example when it happened?
I’m not trying to be hostile in the way that I’m asking these questions. It’s just very strange to me that there is an overwhelming consensus by the users of this community in one direction, and that the people who are moderating it are pursuing this weird non-answer way of reacting to the overwhelming consensus. What bad thing would happen if you followed the example of the !news moderators, and just said, “You know what? We like the bot, but the community hates it, so out it goes.” It doesn’t seem like that should be a complex situation or a difficult decision, and I’m struggling to see why the moderation team is so attached to this bot and their explanations are so bizarre when they’re questioned on it.
Well, for example, just today (or maybe it was yesterday? Things get blurry after a while) somebody posted a Breitbart link.
Now, most of the Lemmy audience is smart enough to know Breitbart is bullshit, and I did remove the link when I saw it, but until I removed it, it was up with the MBFC bot making it clear to anyone who did not know that it was, in fact, bullshit.
We can’t catch everything right away, so it’s good having a bot mark these things.
Yeah mbfc really doing heavy work showing how bad it is…
Wouldn’t the fact that the Breitbart article had – if I recall correctly – a 25:10 upvote-downvote ratio by the time it was removed suggest that the MBFC bot was functionally useless in counteracting a disinformation source? Presumably because most people simply read a headline about Zelensky that wasn’t negative, said “oh cool”, upvoted without reading the article or looking at the source, and continued scrolling? And I can hardly imagine any of the 10 downvoters actually checked the MBFC bot; instead they noticed that it was Breitbart and downvoted because of its notoriety.
We discussed boiling the bot down to a tag on the posts, but apparently there was some technical limitation doing that? Frankly, it’s a little over my head.
Yeah, I’ve heard too that post/user flairs don’t gel with ActivityPub for some reason. 😅
Why does “World News” on lemmy.world give an ass about the American election season? Why was this not instituted during the elections which happened in India? We have like a billion people.
Because the winner of the US election is going to have a massive impact on the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine.
The #1 and #2 topics in World.
Man, idk why you’re getting flak for this one.
i think a better bot would be one that shows the financial/managerial ties a publisher has in a tree format so people can make the decision themselves about political bias
That actually is partially listed on the MBFC site, but you have to follow the link through from the bot to see it:
mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
“Funded by / Ownership
The Guardian and its sister publication, the Sunday newspaper The Observer, are owned by Guardian Media Group plc (GMG). Scott Trust Limited was created in 1936 to ensure the editorial independence of the publications and owns Guardian Media Group plc (GMG). The Guardian states that “The Scott Trust is the sole shareholder in Guardian Media Group, and its profits are reinvested in journalism and do not benefit a proprietor or shareholders.” Donations and advertising fund the Guardian.
The Guardian switched to a tabloid print format in 2018 to cut costs. According to The New York Times, The Guardian “refused to set up a paywall — the preferred strategy of many of its rivals, from The Times of London to The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times — opting instead to ask its readers for donations, even setting up a nonprofit arm to help fund its journalism.””
The bot that everyone (inc. me ) hates?
Not everyone hates it, but if it bothers you that much, you can block it.
I’m not sure why it’s so hated. It’s a handy sanity check. By the way, it doesn’t know bbc.co.uk is BBC. It wants bbc.com.
Looks like that may be a problem with the API, not the site or the bot.
Searching the site for bbc.co.uk correctly points to the BBC:
mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=bbc.co.uk
I’ll PM Rookie, maybe he needs to escape the search term or something.
ponder.cat/comment/588446
One of many examples
Just the overwhelming majority.
People overstate the hatred.
Check this post:
lemmy.world/post/20723122
60 upvotes, 4 comments, bot post is at +1.
Doesn’t look like an overwhelming majority, just that most people ignore it entirely.
Selection bias means that a lot of people who actively dislike the bot have it blocked.
Doesn’t mean they don’t think it’s ridiculous and misleading.
19 hours later it’s at -7. You did get good feed back. You need more sources because MBFC itself is either bad at it’s job or specifically a project to whitewash libertarian and conservative sources.
Aside from the extremely vocal minority who seek it out to downvote it and complain about it constantly, it does seem like people don’t care about it when they don’t need it and appreciate it when they do. Very unscientific observation but obscure sources usually seem to have more upvotes. It doesn’t need to be useful to everyone all the time to have value.
Having quick access to MBFC and Wiki links is great and useful for mods, I assume. I also like that it carves out a thread to discuss sources. Replying to the bot makes it seem much less like you’re attacking the OP, which I always hated pre-bot.
No it’s got a bias problem. They consistently rate sources they perceive as left as less factual, consider conservative anarchists to be mainstream, and rate literal campaign websites as not very biased. They also made up their own terminology that’s loaded, despite the existence of objective terms for decades.
That sounds like an oxymoron. I mean there are anarcho-capitalists but most other anarchists don’t consider them anarchist.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
You know them as their brand name, Libertarians. I’m making the point that they are not a mainstream center ideology as MBFC protrays.
Ok agreed.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
You’re wrong. Tons of peer-reviewed research says you’re wrong. There just isn’t any that says you’re right.
Do you have an explanation for why this bias you claim is so pervasive cannot be found when anyone looks for it? Is it… paranormal bias? Is it just really shy bias that hides when it gets scared?
How can that be true and MBFC be in broad consensus across thousands of news sites with different tools from academics, journalists, and other bias monitoring organizations? Both things cannot be true. In fact, whenever someone compares MBFC to any other resource they find almost perfect correlation, not bias. I’d love for you to explain to me where that bias disappears to when under a microscope.
Is there a conspiracy between bias monitoring organizations, journalists, and academics you have evidence of? Are the prestigious journals that published them in on it too? I can’t wait to sketch out this vast global conspiracy to pull the wool over our eyes and convince us that Democracy Now is just… highly factual. Those bastards!
That’s not saying what you want it to say. It’s a top level picture taking great pains to speak in general terms. So no, it’s not a guard against MBFC having a bias where it rates conservative stuff higher.
We’ve found concrete examples of bias in MBFC that would be very hard to see if you’re just smashing 11,000 data points against each other. This requires checking the actual sites by hand, basically doing their self appointed job again and checking their work. Then checking it against MBFCs other ratings for internal consistency.
No, if there were serious, pervasive bias impacting scores, it would lower the correlation and MBFC would be an outlier in the group because they would be in agreement less. If something’s happening at such a low level that it doesn’t impact correlation, it’s just an outlier. Multiple researchers conclude that the differences between monitors is too low to impact downstream analysis which is hard to square with your claim. And, each entry represents about 0.01% of their content, so what percentage of that data is being used to draw sweeping conclusions about the whole?
There is just high agreement about what constitutes high and low quality news sites. The notion that MBFC is somehow inferior to other bias monitors or extremely biased is not supported by evidence. If one of those organizations is better than the others, it isn’t much better. As this study concludes, because the level of agreement between them is so high, it doesn’t really matter which one you use. They’re all fine. Even they think so. Not only do MBFC ratings correlate nearly perfectly with Newsguard, Newsguard’s rating of MBFC is a perfect score. They’re well-respected by each other.
And, really, how could these researchers who’ve dedicated their lives to understanding this stuff have gotten it so wrong? Academia definitely isn’t a hotbed of conservatism. Using awful tools could destroy their careers but MBFC is regularly used in research. Why? How are these studies getting through peer-review? How are they getting published? There are just too many failure points required.
Because there’s a lot that goes into statistics. Notice I didn’t say they would be conservative, just that sometimes they can be wrong. And they take great pains to say this is a general thing. That means there’s a lot of room in the numbers. It’s not at all what you’re trying to say it is.
The bot serves a very important purpose. It teaches users about the block function. I really tried to tolerate it, but it’s just like those pinned automod comments on reddit.
Just hate that it adds to the comment count
“Oooh what thoughtful discussion has taken place on this interesting news article”
“Oh it’s the bot”
That bot is the main reason I’m mostly getting my news from !world@quokk.au instead now.
Thanks for the community link!
Solid rule. 9/10. One point deduction for making me look at Tom Cotton.
I blocked that shitty bot ages ago.
Your bot sucks and you should feel bad.
Your bot is bad and you should feel bad
I’m open to making it better, do you have suggestions?
Everytime people try to threads either get locked, ignored or the users banned.
lemm.ee/post/41044575
surprisingly admins just stick fingers in ears and yell at users to just ignore the bot
Not seeing any suggestions there to improve the bot, but lots of bannable attacks on other users, mods and admins.
So I’ll say it again, as I’ve told other people complaining, I’m open to making the bot better. If you have suggestions, I’d love to hear them.
It has to be automated, which means accessible through an API.
It has to be no/low cost. Lemmy.World doesn’t have a budget for this. We met with an MBFC alternative, they wanted 6 figures. HARD no.
So already ignoring. This is why people stopped giving feedback
I can’t ignore suggestions nobody is making. Have a better service in mind? Feel free to present it.
We looked at AllSides, which is good for bias, but has no scoring for credibility.
“We have to keep using the ratings website made by a random dude with no background in journalism who makes it available for free because real fact checking services cost money” is perhaps not the argument I would use for why the bot is both accurate and useful.
You don’t have to have a bot at all, especially to replace something like blacklisting Breitbart URLs, but someone thought the idea sounds cool. So “don’t have the bot” has been unnecessarily eliminated as an option. Even though sometimes the best option really is to just not have a bot.
I mean, it’s a great argument for not going with actual fact checkers, unless you’re volunteering to pay.
Not having one is also an option, but for my 2 cents the bot seems accurate enough so far, and it’s easy enough to ignore if you really don’t like it.
I’m definitely not paying to have a “think for me” bot on an instance I’m not part of. You can’t automod your way out of media illiteracy.
Yeah, I don’t expect anything to single-handedly solve the problem.
Stop pretending that “get rid of the bot” doesn’t count as a suggestion. That’s dishonest.
I don’t even care about the bot itself, but at this point I’m just getting pissed off by all the constant distracting bickering about it.
When the question is “how do we improve it?” the answer “get rid of it” is not a genuine suggestion.
The GOOD news is, we DO have a genuinely good suggestion here and the bot creator will be reaching out.
Honest question,
If I understand the comment thread correctly, this means you’ll integrate the Wikipedia/Wikidata info in the existing bot, correct? Will an announcement be posted when or if this happens, so that people like me who blocked the bot can unblock it? I do like the concept of the bot, but I prefer an open source collaborative effort compared to a one man, rightwing aligned website.
Thanks for your openness to improve the service.
Dunno yet, that’s something Rooki and the other user will have to sort out, but I’m all for improvements!
It is a genuine suggestion. If something is a net negative, you don’t go for the sunken cost fallacy and jam it down users throats even harder. If that’s the only question you are willing to ask, then that means you don’t listen to suggestions - you just want to seem like you do.
You could get rid of it. No automation, API, or cost whatsoever.
I can’t, it’s Admin level.
Why is it admin level? Are there admins that tell you what you can and can’t do with the politics community, in this case? Or does the politics moderation team have the ability to ditch the bot if they decide to?
This is such a strange situation. If you’re stuck in that former position, though, it would make a lot of your responses in this comments section make a whole lot more sense.
The Admins run lemmy.world, we serve at their pleasure.
Sure, I could ban it, then likely get removed and have the bot re-instated, and what good would that do anyone?
If the admins need to micro-manage the communities on their instance, let them moderate them.
But that would be require him to give up his small made up powers that make him feel big
It would do a lot of good to everyone. This is the exact same problem that was on reddit during the “boycotts” - moderators afraid of losing power over people, rolling over when a corporation came knocking. Right here it’s instance admins instead. You volunteer your time to do moderation and let them dictate you implement an unpopular change - introducing a biased bot. People don’t like the bot - it constantly is being downvoted, commented about.
The world would be an entirely different place if people had the spine to do what’s right, not only what’s convenient. Reddit would be burnt to a crisp with no moderators if that were the case. So much for an independent platform where people’s voice matters.
lemmy.world/comment/12834553
Rooki is happy to remove it. Ball’s in your court.
edit: 🦗🦗🦗
Coming here randomly, interesting exchange
Hello @jordanlund@lemmy.world,
Is there any update on this? Rooki is ok with the community mods removing the bot, so this seems to be more of a mods community decision rather than one made by the admins?
Hey,
Would you or @goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org want to document this to !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com ?
You could ask them to remove it. Or you could ban it. The other news community doesn’t have it any more. Clearly, it is possible.
How come !news@lemmy.world was able to remove it?
The Admins removed it there.
Because the mods asked for it to be removed after user complaints…
How much are you paying for the MBFC API? The page says it isn’t free. I’ll give you an API endpoint which will check sources against en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…/Perennial_sources, if you pay me half of whatever you were paying MBFC previously. That list is quite a lot better than relying on MBFC.
I already scraped the list. It’ll take around an hour for my script to finish going down the sources and assigning web sites to each one, but I can have a working API endpoint for you tomorrow morning. I can do the bot part also, if you prefer. That’s probably easier than making a new endpoint and hooking it to a bot and debugging the connection and all.
Like I said, I think the idea that readers won’t be able to determine that Breitbart is unreliable is missing a pretty big elephant in the misinformational room. If the issue that’s causing you to keep MBFC is finding a better source that’s programmatic, though, then solving that is almost trivially easy and at least seems like some kind of step forward.
To be honest, that’s Rooki’s deal, but I’ll link them to this comment!
I’ll send them a link and an example of how to use it tomorrow.
MBFC API is free as they gave us access for us as a Non Profit.
We already had in mind adding these sources to our bot but we didnt had the time and knowledge how to scrape that. Personally i would like to host it on our own server so that we dont require you to use your own money just for one bot, in what programming language did you write it?
Thanks a lot!
Rooki
Since it’s a MediaWiki page you can get Markdown source of the page with appending
action=rawquery to the URL.Here you go:
ponder.cat/wp/wp-sources.zip
It’s in python, suitable for sticking directly into the bot if the bot is in python. There are docs. It’s a first cut. How did you envision this working? I can make a real API, if for some reason that makes things easier, but it’s not immediately obvious how it would get integrated into things.
Running it on the last 50 articles posted to /c/politics, we see:
It’s more complex to use this than MBFC, because there’s a lot more depth to the rankings, and sometimes human judgement is needed to assign scores. There’s a category “needinfo,” meaning it’s necessary to know what topic is being discussed or when an article was written, because of an ownership change or similar factor. I’ve applied that judgement above. That, to me, is a good thing. It means the bot is grounded in something, and not just blithely spitting out arbitrary scores without bothering to ground them in any reality.
In practice, I think it would be realistic to assign a single reliability ranking to most of the “needinfo” sources. You can manually edit the .json data to do so. Almost all of the posts are going to fit into one of Wikipedia’s categorizations or another. Newsweek is unreliable, The Guardian is reliable, and so on.
I think most of the mixed-consensus sources can be used without a second thought. Mostly, the questions about them boil down to open partisanship of the source, which for a political community is perfectly fine as long as they’re trustable factually.
If you want me to boil this down further, so that it gives a single “yes” or “no” score to each source, I can do that and probably keep almost all of the accuracy of the rankings, now that I’ve looked at it for a little while.
When you talk about “adding” this to the bot, are you proposing to still have MBFC be the main source, with this as a footnote? A lot of the criticism of the bot is on the grounds that MBFC is a very bad source for judging reliability, so I would question the idea of keeping it on as the primary source.
By “adding” i mean adding it into the field higher than MBFC ( as i personally think wikipedia is a little bit better for that ).
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/b8a510ca-f24e-41c0-b652-d80efc625147.png">
new:
I would like to implement your code into the bot myself so i can learn how you would do it. If you are willing to share your code, please send me a github link ( or invite me if you want it to be private between you and me ) or if its super simple just send it in the dms.
I already sent it. It’s here:
ponder.cat/wp/wp-sources.zip
Edit: You don’t need to do the import initially, since there’s already a sources file with some small modifications. The import is the only complicated part. Use categorize.py to categorize a source, or lookup.py to run a quick command-line test.
Ok i will look into it, thanks i thought it was just the sources not the code.
Ok i implemented it into the bot and it took about 1 hour and 6 minutes to fetch all links and i am now implementing the part where it is inserted into the new text.
Sounds good. If you redid the import, I think you’ll want to make some manual fixes to the .json. Off the top of my head, I think you just need to add bbc.co.uk and aljazeera.com to the URL lists for those sources.
Nice work, thanks for contributing!
On a different topic: It sounds like jordanlund is saying that if he tried to remove the MBFC bot from the politics sub, he might be removed as a moderator, and replaced with someone else, and the bot would come back.
lemmy.world/comment/12825768
Is that true? Is the admin team mandating the use of this bot, and if so, why?
No, i dont get it from where he would get that idea, because see c/politics mods wanted the bot gone and we removed it no question asked.
@jordanlund@lemmy.world if you really dont want the bot here we can remove the bot and shut the bot down ( please consult other c/world mods too )
You mean news? Cause it’s still running on politics
Ok, i’ll bite. I don’t value the bot (in part because it rates sites/newspapers and not authors or articles. Good news sites have the occasional shit article and vice versa), so please reduce the precious space it takes up on my mobile device. A one liner with a link would be enough.
I feel your pain. Some readers, like mine (Boost) don’t handle the spoiler tag markup correctly and it ends up bigger than designed.
https://kbin.melroy.org/m/news@lemmy.world/t/411778/-/comment/3689270
I'm glad that the gist of the Wikipedia thing has finally been implemented, but it currently has major glean issues
Ah yes, people roasting volunteer mods about a thing they could easily ignore. We’re encroaching more and more on Reddit’s turf every day.
We’re not roasting the volunteer mods because we can’t ignore the bot. We’re roasting the volunteer mods because the experience of having someone in a position of power over your environment, and having them show callous indifference to how everyone in the community sees it, and what we want them to be doing with their position of power, leads people to start roasting. Sometimes out of all possible proportion to how big a deal the thing being complained about actually is.
It’s part of the healthy interplay of human society that keeps the social contract well-maintained. Take it as a sign of love, that we value this community and want it to function well.
Suuure. I’ve played this game enough to know that it doesn’t matter what decision you make, someone is going to be loudly unhappy. This is always the case; it’s not a game you can win by appealing to the true will of the shitposters, because that doesn’t exist.
Love has nothing to do with it. Some people enjoy conflict.
Downvote away, my sparkly sluts.
Why does everyone have such an issue with something that is so easily ignored? I honestly don’t understand all the outrage over this.
You and me both! They did have a point when the bot had a donation nag on it, the bot creator heard that complaint and removed it.
Because it is a bot that
One could just block it if they wished, but many users feel that their only way to give real feedback is by downvoting it. The Lemmy World admins have clearly shown they will not remove it no matter how the userbase feels.
If it simply gave the admins/mods feedback about sites, there wouldn’t be very much pushback. But since it’s in every story, giving an opinion of the news organization, it is attempting to influence the conversation.
Tell me, whos paying so that the admins continue to use the bot against all feedback? There’s nothing short of money that makes people stick to hated ideas more. Is this how y’all try to secure server contributions?
Drag thinks the bot smells.
Good rule. Thanks for working for it.
Mostly aggregators make it more of a pain for humans trying to read and find out the source.
Oh no, we wouldn’t want to inconvenience the mbfc bot that that literally everyone hates and wants gone. That would be awful.
I like the bot, and I also hate amp links and url forwarders that can literally take you anywhere but where it’s supposed to.
How dare you have a different opinion. It’s not hard to block the bot, I don’t see why everyone gets their jimmies so rustled about it.
With all the negativity in here, I just wanted to say thanks for all that you do @jordanlund@lemmy.world
I’ve got to wonder why you guys are so insistent on the bot? Personally I just ignore it but the amount of noise it generates for you as mods cannot be worth the tiny amount of value it brings to a handful of users.
It generates a lot of noise in a thread like this, but it’a largely ignored in practical use.
If it’s usually ignored isn’t that a sign to remove it because it provides no value?
It’s definitely as value, it provides clear markers for other users before mods can intervene.
As others have said, work on PR