this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
578 points (90.5% liked)

memes

10428 readers
2568 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 197 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (25 children)

I liked auto tldr bot why not just let people block it themselves if they dont like it.

[–] BatrickPateman@lemmy.world 60 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Was that the bot that just cut paragraphs from an article to shorten them, mangling context beyond comprehension in the process?

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 58 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I rarely had that problem from the bot. Reading from it at least gave me more information and saved me a click without having to be bombarded with cookie notices and requests to subscribe to a newsletter.

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

I did like it when the site was pay walled

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 114 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (12 children)

I love how the mods of the News community held a thread asking for feedback on the bias bot. Everyone overwhelmingly said it was full of shit and should be removed. The mods decided that it must be the text formatting that’s the problem, not the obvious lies the bot spews.

Edit: https://lemmy.world/post/18775630

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 months ago

Then in another thread I came across they said they were open to any solution except getting rid of the bot. When I asked why that was off the table I got a copy paste strawman and then ghosted. I get that modding is a tough and often thankless job but if you make a decision like this that's wildly unpopular then refused to consider feedback it sends a poor message to the community. Hopefully a better solution can be found.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 87 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] FlihpFlorp@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

Memory unlocked: I remember when i came here during the Reddit exodus there were so many bots just cross posting from Reddit it was so overwhelming cus posts had no discussion going on they were just there

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 52 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Me after posting:

β€œOhh, a reply notification for my dank post”

Me reading my inbox:

β€œIt’s a fucking bot.”

[–] superkret 8 points 3 months ago

You can disable seeing bot replies in your settings.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Johanno 23 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ok I wanted to see what are we dealing with here.

The website for the factual check is a bit shady in my opinion.

For example the guardian from UK is mixed because of "many failed fact checks over the last 5 years" I could only find 5 linked there and if that is all failed checks then it is still very good.

Then I looked at a news paper I know is the worst. BILD from Germany. It is also mixed. There was only one failed fact check linked and I don't think the analysis which leads to the conclusion is transparent enough.

So we have a relatively good news paper from UK and a lying shit of paper from Germany and both are mixed. If mixed has this much variance it doesn't mean anything.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Read this website https://unwatch.org/

Then check what its MBFC rating is https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/un-watch/

All you need to know.

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago

My favourite is the BBC bias rating analysis . Pretty blatantly feels based with no elaboration given as to how it was determined to have 'biased story selection '. Everything written in the analysis is apparently completely irrelevant to the final rating.

[–] Johanno 7 points 3 months ago

When reading through the few examples I got the hard feeling that left news were much more harshly checked than right news.

This proofs that.

[–] merthyr1831@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

Not to mention that MBFC is Israeli affiliated lmao

[–] crawancon@lemm.ee 12 points 3 months ago

aaaaand stay out ya lowsy reddit origin binary blob O bits

[–] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Bots^[[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/they-took-our-jobs]

[–] lengau@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I just don't get this complaint. Block the bot and you never have to worry about it again.

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Linkerbaan is a shill. My guess is they're against the bot because it will call out their authoritarian propaganda.

[–] lengau@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I'm aware of Linkerbaan and their repeated violations of lemmy.world sitewide rules. I just don't understand why other people are in such agreement.

[–] Zoot@reddthat.com 1 points 3 months ago

To me it doesn't make sense to get rid of a bot that objectively helps everyone (any article is now easily read from a summary) with an extremely controversial bot, that they will not take suggestions or feedback on.

Sure you can block what ever bots you want, and id say that is the best solution. However, you can't choose to do that when Lemmy.world bans Autotldr and not mbfc.

[–] emmy67@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Tbh i was late to the hate. Wasn't it run or sourced by ground news? Was it inaccurate or something?

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

It's sourced by MBFC and Ground News. MBFC is ran by a Zionist.

In the end the rating of a website is not important, as long as the article posted is well sourced.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί