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.

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    In what way does having the MediaBiasFactCheck bot help with misinformation? It’s not very accurate, probably less than the average Lemmy reader’s preexisting knowledge level. People elsewhere in these comments are posting specific examples, in a coherent, respectful fashion.

    Most misinformation clearly comes in the form of accounts that post a steady stream of “reliable” articles which don’t technically break the rules, and/or in bad-faith comments. You may well be doing plenty of work on that also, I’m not saying you’re not, but it doesn’t seem from the outside like a priority in the way that the bot is. What is the use case where the bot ever helped prevent some misinformation? Do you have an example when it happened?

    I’m not trying to be hostile in the way that I’m asking these questions. It’s just very strange to me that there is an overwhelming consensus by the users of this community in one direction, and that the people who are moderating it are pursuing this weird non-answer way of reacting to the overwhelming consensus. What bad thing would happen if you followed the example of the !news moderators, and just said, “You know what? We like the bot, but the community hates it, so out it goes.” It doesn’t seem like that should be a complex situation or a difficult decision, and I’m struggling to see why the moderation team is so attached to this bot and their explanations are so bizarre when they’re questioned on it.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Well, for example, just today (or maybe it was yesterday? Things get blurry after a while) somebody posted a Breitbart link.

      Now, most of the Lemmy audience is smart enough to know Breitbart is bullshit, and I did remove the link when I saw it, but until I removed it, it was up with the MBFC bot making it clear to anyone who did not know that it was, in fact, bullshit.

      We can’t catch everything right away, so it’s good having a bot mark these things.

      • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 months ago

        Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, the publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda, as well as numerous false claims. (M. Huitsing 6/18/2016) Updated (01/29/2022)

        Yeah mbfc really doing heavy work showing how bad it is…

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Wouldn’t the fact that the Breitbart article had – if I recall correctly – a 25:10 upvote-downvote ratio by the time it was removed suggest that the MBFC bot was functionally useless in counteracting a disinformation source? Presumably because most people simply read a headline about Zelensky that wasn’t negative, said “oh cool”, upvoted without reading the article or looking at the source, and continued scrolling? And I can hardly imagine any of the 10 downvoters actually checked the MBFC bot; instead they noticed that it was Breitbart and downvoted because of its notoriety.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          We discussed boiling the bot down to a tag on the posts, but apparently there was some technical limitation doing that? Frankly, it’s a little over my head.