this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
63 points (72.7% liked)
Lemmy.world Support
3230 readers
1 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 report@lemmy.world (PGP Supported) if you need to reach our directly to the admin team.
Follow us for server news 🐘
Outages 🔥
https://status.lemmy.world
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
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.
what are you basing that critique off of?
His opinion as he can not provide any source than "trust me bro".
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?
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.
Wow! Talk about misinformation!!! https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/
Or maybe you think they were bought and paid for by some nefarious source? Nope…
Thank you for at least providing an iota of something constructive. It’s an interesting idea, and there is academic research that shows it might be possible. But the problem is then in a world already filled with state- and corpo-sponsored organized misinformation campaigns, how does any crowdsourced solution avoid capture and infiltration from the very sources of misinformation it should be assessing? Look at the feature on Twitter and how often that is abused. Then you’d need a fact checker for your fact checker.
Wow so you're telling me mbfc isn't staffed by volunteers, instead they are trying to get paid by subs and ad revenue?
The more I learn about mbfc the worse it gets.
Like, any other fact checking site?
mbfc has been independently shown to be accurate.
what are you referring to?
How?
what?
How has it been shown accurate.?
there are independent studies showing its judgments to be the same as other reliable news fact checking sources.
here's one by the national institute of health.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10500312/
there have been a bunch of studies like this about mbfc, just type in mbfc independent reliability study or something like that in any search engine and you'll get a bunch of studies showing that they're as credible as other reliable news fact checking sources and have no track record or evidence of misinformation.
That doesn't address the issue of mbfc adding it's own bias in, which is what most have an issue with.
It just focuses on their factual response and even ends with
it explicitly addresses the baseless accusations of internal bias impacting ratings.
that's the very point of these independent studies.
if mbfc checkers or other fact-checkers allowed their biases into their ratings, those findings would differ from other news fact-checking sources that managed to rate news sources more objectively.
since their findings range from very similar to nearly identical to other credible news fact-checking sources and importantly there is still zero evidence of their "own bias" affecting their ratings, there's no base for the accusations.
just rilers rilin'.
They ignored the part of
Which is where the founder loves to play around with ratings based on their own biases.
The study you linked too goes off of the factual rating which the founder usually doesn't touch.
It's amazing how many they will say factual no failed fact checks then immediately doc rating because of their bias. Especially if publication doesn't like Israel