News @lemmy.world JonsJava @lemmy.world 5 mo. ago

[META] MBFC bot

The news mod team has asked to no longer be a part of the project until we have a composite tool that polls multiple sources for a more balanced view.

It will take a few hours, but FOR NOW there won't be a bot giving reviews of the source.

The goal was simple: make it easier to show biased sources. This was to give you and the mods a better view of what we were looking at.

The mod team is in agreement: one source of truth isn't enough. We are working on a tool to give a composite score, from multiple sources, all open source.

125

125 comments

Keep it gone. MBFC and others are not a source of truth.

Adding multiple sources of bias does not produce an unbiased result.
No one wants this bot. In the last thread asking for feedback there was an overwhelming majority that did not want it. You’re attached to it because you made it. People don’t want it. It happens. Stop it.
Good riddance.
Why do you insist on fixing the bot instead of directing your energy elsewhere? Fixing the media bias bot to not have any bias is a fool's errand.
Rule 1 Ban Count: 5

@LagrangePoint@lemmy.world (Permaban)

@aniki@lemmings.world (15 day ban)

@catloaf@lemm.ee (15 day ban)

@DoctorButts@kbin.melroy.org (Permaban)

@stormesp@lemm.ee (15 day ban)

Not a good look, mods.
Don't grade sources on leftness or rightness. It's relative. Aggregation doesn't fix the problem of Overton shift.
No one wants a bot.
The news mod team has asked to no longer be a part of the project until we have a composite tool that polls multiple sources for a more balanced view.

Thank you. It is often difficult to change course once it is set. I appreciate the !news team reaching out to the community and acting on their concerns.
So if it's still showing up what does that mean?
IMO no need for any bot. As long as articles are factually correct there should be no problem where they are from.

I know someone spent a lot of time writing a cool bot, but sometimes less is more.
I liked it. Even a biased MBFC that is consistent in it's bias has value, as you can take the bias into perspective on interpreting the rating.
Honestly; I think the "Negative" reactions to the bot are overblown and only done by a vocal minority who are sockpuppeting followed by a few people who are irrationally angry that the bot can be, GASP! Dare I SAY IT???!!11, Wrong.

Personally I don't find the bot problematic at all; and I think it could easily be blocked or ignored by people who find it too inaccurate. So I find it extremely disappointing that the mods are listening to the vocal minority about this.

That being said; I do understand why Mods want to make the bot more accurate. It's assessments and information can easily make obvious extremists and trolls more obvious to the naked eye; and can help people consume media with some grains of salt. More sources of data are good for accuracy.
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
I'm absolutely for the bot and I know I'm not alone. I like having it and I find it useful. I don't know why other people think it's "a source of truth" like I'm some mindless sheep who can't think on my own. I can and do take its rating with a grain of salt.

I don't like sports but you don't see me asking admins to remove those subs. It's selfish of people to ask for it to take it down for everyone. A good aspect of using Lemmy is being able to customize your experience--so do that. If you don't like bots, hide them all in the settings or block them individually. It's that simple.

Now that I think of it, maybe Lemmy should ask new users how they want to experience the site when creating their accounts.
What I wish we had is a tool for showing which sources tend to be most statistically correlated with each other, without trying to place them on a linear spectrum.
Thank you mods.

You've viewed 125 comments.