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.

  • hamid@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    8711·
    2 months ago

    Haha, wow you guys really need to work on your PR

    There are so many good reasons to block aggregators and you picked the worst one, your bot that no one likes.

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
      454·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, seriously, aggregators are annoying as fuck, they’re link rot waiting to happen, it’s impossible to tell the quality of the source from the URL…

      And the problem is of course the MBFC bot. It’s a change for good, but this is what we’re going with? They chose the one line that would get them backlash for an objective improvement.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        12·
        2 months ago

        MSN is cancerous and was barely usable the last few times I’ve been bamboozled into going there. Yahoo is the same, just easier to avoid. I honestly haven’t run into the Google one.

        They literally add nothing to the internet as far as I can tell.

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
          51·
          2 months ago

          MSN is one of the biggest piece of shit middlemen I’ve seen on the Internet. Good riddance, and to be absolutely clear, I’m glad the mods are doing this.

          • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            3·
            2 months ago

            Glad just also wish it was for reasons other than the shit bot can’t handle it.

            Ffs just say it’s because they’re terrible and take away from the actual source not our shit bot has issues finding the actual source

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
          1115·
          2 months ago

          Not seeing any suggestions there to improve the bot, but lots of bannable attacks on other users, mods and admins.

          So I’ll say it again, as I’ve told other people complaining, I’m open to making the bot better. If you have suggestions, I’d love to hear them.

          1. It has to be automated, which means accessible through an API.

          2. It has to be no/low cost. Lemmy.World doesn’t have a budget for this. We met with an MBFC alternative, they wanted 6 figures. HARD no.

          • Docus@lemmy.worldEnglish
            16·
            2 months ago

            Ok, i’ll bite. I don’t value the bot (in part because it rates sites/newspapers and not authors or articles. Good news sites have the occasional shit article and vice versa), so please reduce the precious space it takes up on my mobile device. A one liner with a link would be enough.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
              41·
              2 months ago

              I feel your pain. Some readers, like mine (Boost) don’t handle the spoiler tag markup correctly and it ends up bigger than designed.

          • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
            15·
            2 months ago

            You could get rid of it. No automation, API, or cost whatsoever.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
              39·
              2 months ago

              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.worldEnglish
                15·
                2 months ago

                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.

                • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
                  310·
                  2 months ago

                  When the question is “how do we improve it?” the answer “get rid of it” is not a genuine suggestion.

                  The GOOD news is, we DO have a genuinely good suggestion here and the bot creator will be reaching out.

  • Darkassassin07@lemmy.caEnglish
    3810·
    2 months ago

    Really? That’s your compelling argument?

    It’s to difficult for your bot, that’s universally hated in this community, to work with?

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
      1126·
      2 months ago

      The bot is instituted by the Admins and with good reason.

      But yes, this has been the problem that pops up recently. The bot sees “Oh, MSN, they’re reliable…” but the OG source is not.

      • Jumuta@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        9·
        2 months ago

        i think a better bot would be one that shows the financial/managerial ties a publisher has in a tree format so people can make the decision themselves about political bias

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
          26·
          2 months ago

          That actually is partially listed on the MBFC site, but you have to follow the link through from the bot to see it:

          https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

          "Funded by / Ownership

          The Guardian and its sister publication, the Sunday newspaper The Observer, are owned by Guardian Media Group plc (GMG). Scott Trust Limited was created in 1936 to ensure the editorial independence of the publications and owns Guardian Media Group plc (GMG). The Guardian states that “The Scott Trust is the sole shareholder in Guardian Media Group, and its profits are reinvested in journalism and do not benefit a proprietor or shareholders.” Donations and advertising fund the Guardian.

          The Guardian switched to a tabloid print format in 2018 to cut costs. According to The New York Times, The Guardian “refused to set up a paywall — the preferred strategy of many of its rivals, from The Times of London to The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times — opting instead to ask its readers for donations, even setting up a nonprofit arm to help fund its journalism.”"

  • njm1314@lemmy.worldEnglish
    183·
    2 months ago

    Oh no, we wouldn’t want to inconvenience the mbfc bot that that literally everyone hates and wants gone. That would be awful.

    • viking@infosec.pubEnglish
      63·
      2 months ago

      I like the bot, and I also hate amp links and url forwarders that can literally take you anywhere but where it’s supposed to.

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.worldEnglish
        43·
        2 months ago

        How dare you have a different opinion. It’s not hard to block the bot, I don’t see why everyone gets their jimmies so rustled about it.

  • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    206·
    2 months ago

    Tell me, whos paying so that the admins continue to use the bot against all feedback? There’s nothing short of money that makes people stick to hated ideas more. Is this how y’all try to secure server contributions?

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
      96·
      2 months ago

      You can use an archive link to get around a paywall, that’s always been allowed.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
          24·
          2 months ago

          Archive links are allowed, and, in fact, if you submit a link from the web interface, it offers to generate an archive link for you.

          I specifically clarified that with the Admins when they asked us to crack down on copy pasting full articles.

  • blackn1ght@feddit.ukEnglish
    8·
    2 months ago

    I’ve got to wonder why you guys are so insistent on the bot? Personally I just ignore it but the amount of noise it generates for you as mods cannot be worth the tiny amount of value it brings to a handful of users.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
      12·
      2 months ago

      It generates a lot of noise in a thread like this, but it’a largely ignored in practical use.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
          12·
          2 months ago

          It’s definitely as value, it provides clear markers for other users before mods can intervene.

          • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            4·
            2 months ago

            It generates a lot of noise in a thread like this, but it’a largely ignored in practical use.

            provides clear markers for other users before mods can intervene.

            As others have said, work on PR

  • WrenFeathers@lemmy.worldEnglish
    86·
    2 months ago

    Why does everyone have such an issue with something that is so easily ignored? I honestly don’t understand all the outrage over this.

    • Pogogunner@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      112·
      2 months ago

      Because it is a bot that

      1. Gives a biased opinion
      2. Pretends to be objective
      3. Was not asked for, and does not need to exist
      4. Forced onto the users despite many objections

      One could just block it if they wished, but many users feel that their only way to give real feedback is by downvoting it. The Lemmy World admins have clearly shown they will not remove it no matter how the userbase feels.

      If it simply gave the admins/mods feedback about sites, there wouldn’t be very much pushback. But since it’s in every story, giving an opinion of the news organization, it is attempting to influence the conversation.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
      49·
      2 months ago

      You and me both! They did have a point when the bot had a donation nag on it, the bot creator heard that complaint and removed it.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    1212·
    2 months ago

    Ah yes, people roasting volunteer mods about a thing they could easily ignore. We’re encroaching more and more on Reddit’s turf every day.

  • Ginja@lemmy.worldEnglish
    36·
    2 months ago

    With all the negativity in here, I just wanted to say thanks for all that you do @jordanlund@lemmy.world