this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
107 points (85.0% liked)

World News

38797 readers
2005 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

“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.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah, I don't expect anything to single-handedly solve the problem.