I liked auto tldr bot why not just let people block it themselves if they dont like it.
Was that the bot that just cut paragraphs from an article to shorten them, mangling context beyond comprehension in the process?
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.
I did like it when the site was pay walled
Just use archive.org! At least then you’re not getting an AI hallucinated “summary” of the article.
deleted by creator
So… how do I opt in to see the bot in the comments?
Ahh you see they pulled a sneaking in ya. You can’t its simply deflecting from the argument.
Its not deflecting, its the correct answer. Just because something isnt implemented yet, doesnt mean its an invalid solution.
When it comes to tools that help you stay informed, I’d say the opposite is true.
If one wants to maintain ignorance, they should have to do so at their own inconvenience.
deleted by creator
Whether they are effective or not is definitely in question, but they are unquestionably intended to be informative. If they irritate you, you have the ability to exercise your right to block them.
You being annoyed at something you don’t like isn’t a reason to not have it.
deleted by creator
Here’s the thread that’s full to the brim with evidence of bias. Read it for yourself instead of listening to the liar that replied to you.
This user is literally lying about what the thread contains! holy shit the level of gaslighting and misinformation is insane! How can you function!?!?!
That thread was filled with people downvoting anyone who even attempted to disagree. It was also full of people claiming bias and then not backing it up with a single source, link to offending pages, etc. so yeah no wonder it was full of people saying they hated it. Anyone who said otherwise (like myself) got fucking reamed.
Here’s the thread that’s full to the brim with evidence of bias. Read it for yourself instead of listening to this liar.
Which tool is helping us stay informed?
BUT U CANT OPT IN
deleted by creator
You can opt in to not seeing the bots.
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.
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.
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.
Claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is a hater is inherently dishonest.
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 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’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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Me after posting:
“Ohh, a reply notification for my dank post”
Me reading my inbox:
“It’s a fucking bot.”
You can disable seeing bot replies in your settings.
deleted by creator
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.
Read this website https://unwatch.org/
Then check what its MBFC rating is https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/un-watch/
All you need to know.
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.
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.
Not to mention that MBFC is Israeli affiliated lmao
aaaaand stay out ya lowsy reddit origin binary blob O bits
Tbh i was late to the hate. Wasn’t it run or sourced by ground news? Was it inaccurate or something?
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.
deleted by creator
Sober Barny sucks.
