this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
578 points (90.5% liked)
memes
10428 readers
2637 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anyone who said otherwise got downvoted to hell and deleted their comments because it was clear the bot haters are so fervent they do not care about facts, they just want to yell about hating something.
And the mods aren’t the ones that implemented the bot. It was the admins, so no shit the mods couldn’t do anything about it.
That’s an odd way to agree with me that the bot is entirely unpopular.
No it means that the only people participating in the thread are people who passionately hate it. The same way you only hear negative reviews for things, even if something is great, because most people don’t care enough to put the effort in for positive reviews.
A slight follow-up: the mod log on Lemmy is public, and I can’t find much evidence to corroborate your claim that all of the supporting comments were self-deleted. Can you back up the claim you made?
Not to mention that anyone who is so worried about imaginary federated internet points to the point of deleting unpopular statements is a fuckin’ loser that isn’t worth listening to…
Self deletions don't appear in the mod log. Only moderator actions. That's why it's called the mod log.
Maybe a bunch of people just don't like a bot being pushed that tells people what to think.
Still waiting for Rooki to see reason.
I don't hate bots, I don't even hate the MBFC bot but I feel strongly about it specifically because it spreads misinformation. Claiming that an arbitrary bias rating can in any way be considered a fact is going out on a limb, to put it mildly. I don't hate bots, I don't hate facts, and I don't like yelling. Frankly it's been pretty tiring to try and stay constructive whilst voicing concerns about something I am passionate about.
Instead of accusing everyone you disagree with of being a hater and wanting to yell at things, maybe we could engage honestly with the issue instead.
Not a single person in this thread has provided a single shred of proof for the “misinformation” claim, so forgive me if I don’t believe your very first sentence. It’s just a bunch of people spouting nonsense and not backing it up with anything. If you provide even a single link (first hand source, not a lemmy comment) supporting your argument that it’s misinformation then I will gladly have a conversation with you about how bias ratings can be accurately created.
I said everyone is a hater because I did try to converse honestly earlier in the thread and people refused to provide any sort of proof of misinformation, literally going so far as to say I should just “google it”. Sorry it’s not on me to provide proof for others claims.
Claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is a hater is inherently dishonest. I'm not trying to defend every single person who might have downvoted you, only providing you a counter example to hopefully get you to challenge your assumption.
I can give you an example of what I would consider misinformation from MBFC itself in their bias rating of the BBC. It's misinformation in my view because this particular example exposed the arbitrary and contentious nature of their bias ratings which they present as though they have some kind of rigour behind it. That is simply not the case. For what it's worth I provided a discussion on this particular topic which I won't repeat here but hopefully you can see why I would say it spreads misinformation.
Again, not trying to defend every single person who's been in this discussion, but your dismissal of criticism because everyone is just a hater is not justified, because there are plenty of people raising well thought out and genuine concerns.
I did not claim that. I said that anyone who provided an alternative opinion got downvoted by haters who are so fervent they do not care about facts. Disagreements are not downvotes.
I'm not even talking about myself. That was one of the first comments I made in the thread. I was talking about others who got downvoted for literally saying they like the bot. It had nothing to do with disagreement.
Can you go more into what you think is arbitrary and contentious in that rating? As it is, what I see is that they have provided very detailed reasons for their ratings, backed up with sources and statistics, and then provided a multi-faceted rating to cover each part of that.
you're the first I've seen that actually has commented anything even slightly reasonable.
The rating is arbitrary because even MBFC cannot agree with itself on why it gave the rating. It seems to be plucked from the air, with no justification given.
The top level reason they give us 'biased story selection'. Nowhere in their analysis is this concept defined or even mentioned. Instead the analysis mentions 3rd party research which concludes that the BBC is somewhat right wing on many key issues, go into some audience analysis (completely irrelevant) and then assert that they have a negative tone when discussing Trump, with one single example given.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't think this can credibility be called a detailed analysis when evidently none of it supports the conclusion that the BBC is left wing due to story selection.