Hi all!
As many of you have noticed, many Lemmy.World communities introduced a bot: @MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world. This bot was introduced because modding can be pretty tough work at times and we are all just volunteers with regular lives. It has been helpful and we would like to keep it around in one form or another.
The !news@lemmy.world mods want to give the community a chance to voice their thoughts on some potential changes to the MBFC bot. We have heard concerns that tend to fall into a few buckets. The most common concern we’ve heard is that the bot’s comment is too long. To address this, we’ve implemented a spoiler tag so that users need to click to see more information. We’ve also cut wording about donations that people argued made the bot feel like an ad.
Another common concern people have is with MBFC’s definition of “left” and “right,” which tend to be influenced by the American Overton window. Similarly, some have expressed that they feel MBFC’s process of rating reliability and credibility is opaque and/or subjective. To address this, we have discussed creating our own open source system of scoring news sources. We would essentially start with third-party ratings, including MBFC, and create an aggregate rating. We could also open a path for users to vote, so that any rating would reflect our instance’s opinions of a source. We would love to hear your thoughts on this, as well as suggestions for sources that rate news outlets’ bias, reliability, and/or credibility. Feel free to use this thread to share other constructive criticism about the bot too.
Im sorry but the sole concept of the bot is bullshit and as many have said already the idea is biased per se. I wish i lived in the same world as mbfc where it seems like all media is left-center.
If anything, what would be needed would be a bot that checked if the information on that article has any known missinformation or incorrect/wrong facts. And that would be extremely hard to maintain and update as a lot of news are posted before any fact checking can be done.
I wish the comment count on a post didn’t include MBFC (or maybe bots in general).
I’ll be honest, that’s probably outside of the scope of what we can do for now. It’s definitely valuable feedback in general and I wish I could offer some kind of solution but that’s probably even outside the control of the instance admins.
Someone can feel free to correct me if I’m wrong!
On this topic the information would probably be ideally delivered by flairs/post tags which lemmy doesn’t support yet (AFAICT).
Simply having (bias:left) (factuality: high) would be much better than a whole comment.
I’m frankly rather concerned about the idea of crowdsourcing or voting on “reliability”, because - let’s be honest here - Lemmy’s population can have highly skewed perspectives on what constitutes “accurate”, “unbiased”, or “reliable” reporting of events. I’m concerned that opening this to influence by users’ preconceived notions would result in a reinforced echo chamber, where only sources which already agree with their perspectives are listed as “accurate”. It’d effectively turning this into a bias bot rather than a bias fact checking bot.
Aggregating from a number of rigorous, widely-accepted, and outside sources would seem to be a more suitable solution, although I can’t comment on how much programming it would take to produce an aggregate result. Perhaps just briefly listing results from a number of fact checkers?
I second this. This community is better than most social media, but it’s still that, and social media popularity is pretty bottom of the barrel as a means of determining accuracy. Additionally, that’d just open it up to abuse from people trying to weight the votes with fake accounts, scripts, whatever.
That’s fair. One idea could be a separate “community rating” and one that is more professional. Think Metacritic, RottenTomatoes, etc
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Okay, so maybe we don’t need a comment if it’s a meta post or a mod announcement. Thanks for your inadvertent feedback, bot!
it also does this with a bunch of weird little local newspapers or etc which I’ve never heard of, which is like the one time I actually want it to be providing me with some kind of frame of reference for the source. MSNBC and the NYT, I feel like I already know what I think about them.
Yeah, it’s tricky because who reviews those small guys? Granted, most of them are probably owned by a giant like Gannett, but that doesn’t mean we can just apply a rating from 1 small Gannett-owned paper to another. We’d like there to be some way for users to share their feedback/ratings on those small guys. But then it’s also true that some people will create a news site and try to share links on here to promote their new website and that’s typically just spam bots.
It’s this uninvited commenting on the bots part that has me downvoting it. It’s presenting itself at an authority here. If a user in the comments called the bot to fact check something and the bot did a bad job, i’d just block the bot. I’d even be able to look over that users history to get an idea of the bot’s purpose. But this bot comes in and says “here’s the truth”, then spits out something i’d expect to see on twitters current itteration.
If the problem you’re trying to solve is the reliability of the media being posted here. Take the left/right bias call out and find a decent databse on new source quality. Start the bots post out with resources for people to develop their own skill at spotting bad news content.
If the problem you’re trying to solve is the visibility of political bias in content posted here. So the down vote button isnt acting as a proxy for that. Adding a function for the community to rate left/right lean like rotten tomatoes sounds interesting, so long as you take the reliability rating out of the bot. You can’t address both media reliability and political bias in one automated post. nyt and npr being too pearl clutchy for my taste. and some outlet that only exists only on facebook having the same assumed credibility as the associated press. are wildly different issues.
It has been helpful and we would like to keep it around in one form or another.
Bull fucking shit. The majority of feedback has been negative. I can’t recall a single person arguing in its favor, but I can think of many, myself included, arguing against it. I hope you can find my report of one particular egregious example, because Lemmy doesn’t let me see a history of things I reported. I recall that MBFC rated a particular source poorly because they dared to use the word “genocide” to describe what’s going on in Gaza. Trusting one person, who clearly starts from an American point of view, and has a clearly biased view of world events, to be the arbiter of what is liberal or conservative, or factual or fictional, is actively harmful.
No community, neither reddit nor Lemmy nor any other, has suffered for lack of such a bot. I strongly recommend removing it. Non-credible sources, misinformation, and propaganda are already prohibited under rule 8. If a particular source is so objectionable, it should be blacklisted entirely. And what is and is not acceptable should be determined in concert with the community, not unilaterally.
Just as a point of clarification, there is certainly not a community consensus among the feedback.
While you are absolutely correct in stating that there are vocal members of the community opposed to it in any form, there is also a significant portion of the community that would prefer to keep or modify how it works. The most team will be taking all of these perspectives into account. We hope that you will be respectful of community members with whom you disagree.
I haven’t seen any strong arguments for keeping it up.
Yes! The mods starting out the discussion with their preferred outcome is so incredibly telling. This is a tool to reinforce the mods bias, deliberately or not
I will start by saying that I feel like we are trying to address the criticism in your first paragraph with these changes. That being said, thanks for your feedback. I particularly like the comment you shared under the “edit,” because I hadn’t seen that sentiment shared before (not saying nobody else had that issue, just appreciating you for contributing that and challenging me to think more about how we execute things).
I also would like it not add to the comment count. I am now getting inured to comment counts of “1”.
I generally like the bot and its intentions, but feel it inaccurate with my perception too often.
The bot is pretty accurate and the comments are already pretty short. I feel like if people don’t like it they should just block it.
Removed by mod
Hi! 👋🏾
There’s no such thing as an objective left or right. It’s a relative scale. You shouldn’t have a bot calling things left or right at all.
Also don’t push Ground News. They already get plenty of press from their astroturfing.
Honestly, the first time I had heard of Ground News was in a discussion about implementing it with the bot. Do you have any thoughts on alternatives or would you prefer that bit just removed from the bot’s comment?
Someone else in this thread said to link to media literacy resources and I agree with them.
This. The bot is effectively just propaganda for the author’s biases.
Do you think aggregating ratings from multiple factors checkers would reduce that bias?
Adding more biases doesn’t remove the initial bias.
No. The problem with your current bot isn’t that the website authors have a particular axe to grind, it’s that they’re just in a rush and a bit lazy.
This means that they tend to say news sites which acknowledge and correct their own mistakes have credibility problems, because it’s right there - the news sites themselves acknowledged issues. Even though these are the often most credible sites, because they fix errors and care about being right.
Similarly the whole left-right thing is just half-assed and completely useless for anyone that doesn’t live in the US. While anyone that does live in the US probably already has an opinion about these US news sources.
Because these are lazy errors, lots of people will make similar mistakes, and aggregating ratings will amplify this, and let you pretend to be objective without fixing anything.
Keep in mind that if you base your judgements of left bias and right bias on the American overton window, that window has been highly influenced by fascism over the last 10 years, and now your judgement is based on the normalisation of fascism, which your bot is implicitly accepting. That’s bad. If you’re going to characterise sources as left or right in any form, you need to pick a point that you personally define as center. And now your judgements are all going to implicitly push people towards that point. You could say that Karl Marx is the center of the political spectrum, or you could say Mussolini is. Both of those statements are equally valid, and they are as valid as what you are doing now. If you don’t want to push any set of biases, you need to stop calling sources left and right altogether.
Hm… At some point a human will have to say “Yes, this response is correct.” to whatever the machine outputs. The output then takes the bias of that human. (This is unavoidable, I’m just pointing it out.) If this is really not an effort in ideological propaganda, a solution could be for the bot to provide arguments, rather han conclusions. Instead of telling me a source is “Left” or “Biased”, it could say: “I found this commentary/article/websites/video discussing this aource’s political leaning (or quality): Link 1 Link 2 Link 3”
Here you reduce bias by presenting information, instead of conclusions, and then letting the reader come to their own conclusions based on this information. This not only is better at education, but also helps readers develop their critical thinking.
Instead of… You know, being told what to think about what by a bot.
Get rid of the bot
A way to improve the MBFC bot would be to delete it.
Failing that, a way to improve the community would be to ban it.
Would you like to elaborate?
Would you like to read 99% of the replies to this thread tbh?
It adds no value to the posts, incites arguments (how is that helping with modding? Why do the mods need to announce MBFC’s rating on every post?), and exports critical thinking to a site that has its own biases while maintaining a veneer of “neutrality”. The ratings often have no justification, making them little better than some dude’s opinion. I can keep going but I think that covers most of it.
The bot has no purpose. Either an article can be posted or not there’s no reason for the bot prompt. It just looks like thought policing using a bias checker which ‘coincidentally’ prefers what the current Democrats position is.
I can hardly imagine the bot stopping any fake news from being posted either.
I wound up blocking your shitty bot because it spammed pretty much every post.
Okay. This post is an attempt to solicit constructive criticism/feedback. Do you have anything more concrete to share?
Yes, maybe don’t have the bot be the first and only response on every single post. Let them gain the tiniest bit of traction first. It’s beyond annoying to see an article, go to the comments, and your bot be the only response.
You don’t need to manufacture an authoritative source of truth as you the mods see it.
Just write down what you see as the truth and that you’ll ban anyone who speaks out against it.
Stop trying to build a machine to do the work of creating an echo chamber for you.
Always appreciate feedback! As a .ml user, I’d love to hear more about your thoughts on echo chambers
Are you removing the bot or are you still following this stunt as if you didnt have enough replies?
My replies were good faith discussions with the users (except for the one joke above). I don’t control the bot but the mod team has been discussing this. By all means, if you want to blame the mod who took the initiative to solicit feedback, go ahead though. It’s worth noting that I can’t force admins to act though, only supply evidence.
Edit: to be clear, this post was always meant for constructive feedback to improve the bot.
The feedback has been loud and clear, the bot is a shit and most people want it gone. Sorry but most of your replies have been very targeted and the good faith more than debatable, they go from naive to outright omitting the point most people is trying to explain to you. Edit: also to be clear, i dont care if you are not the owner of the bot, as a mod you can ban it.
Yes, I could do whatever I want as a mod, if I want to be removed from the mod team within minutes.
What can i say? I really admire your writing comprehension
If news@world had rules that reflected a coherent politics it could be political or even propagandistic.
Because no such rules exist to direct action and development, ideas like the fact checker bot crop up. In lieu of direction, the fact checker bot reflects a laundered western liberal political line back onto the news@world community.
An echo chamber is not an area where everyone says the same things, it’s an environment where a certain type of waves (or just all waves) are reenforced due to structural elements of the chamber.
By using the fact checker bot to do the work of policing speech, you have created a structural element which reenforces certain kinds of speech.
It’s a component of an echo chamber in the metaphor.
That’s significantly different than taking the more difficult route of determining the news@world mod team political line, struggling internally and externally with its contradictions and acting in ways that reflect it because the latter requires that the mod team use judgement rather than just act on voices who are not reenforced by the built structural elements of the news@world community.
I’m gonna be Left-Center on this with reliable credibility that the bot is useless at best.
It is reporting on the source, not the content, of what is posted which is already going to be a problem for discourse.
If there are media sources that are known or proven to be a problem, I would find it preferable the bot just alert that and ignore anything else.
I appreciate the joke lol. But on a serious note, it sounds like you’re saying it’s not actually 100% useless, just that it’s being deployed too widely. Any specific suggestions on what the bot should say on those questionable sources?
My main issue is that it doesn’t provide any real value.
If I see a Guardian/BBC news article about international events, I’ll give it a lot of trust. But when it’s talking about England, my eyebrows are raised. Calling it Left/right/center doesn’t help a reader understand that.
Worse it hot garbage like The Daily Mail. They have no fact check or provide real journalism. It means nothing to me what it aligns to.
Then the bottom of the barrel is some random news site that was spun up a month ago like Freedom Patriot News. Of course we know where it lands in the political spectrum. But it’s extreme propaganda.
The challenge here is that trust has become subjective. Conservatives don’t trust CNN. Democrats don’t trust Fox News. It becomes difficult to rate the quality of the organization in a binary way.
Current ownership and governance of the media outlet, generally speaking. Noting if an outlet is state owned or public traded, etc might help.
Does the bot even tell the difference between an opinion piece and investigative journalism?
If a source is a proven misinformation generator then noting the proof with direct links to evidence, cases, rulings, etc. However those sources tend to disappear quickly and are constantly being generated. It is whack a mole and generates an endlessly outdated list.
The problem is it likely isn’t any information a bot can just scoop up and relay, and instead requires research and human effort.
MBFC does link to articles that are examples of misinformation. And no, the bot cannot tell if something is an opinion piece or not.
Interesting suggestion about state-owned media, hadn’t heard that before. Thanks for that
@jeffw@lemmy.world Why did you stop replying to posts here? Most people is telling you the bot is bullshit. You stopped commenting in this thread while being active elsewhere, are you going to take action or not?
I’m not the admin who created the bot. I’m a mod who is collecting feedback on behalf of the entire mod team.
Just to be perfectly clear: because I am the face of this feedback, you can feel free to say whatever you want to me. It’s odd that you seem to harbor ill feelings towards me in particular just because I pushed for collecting user feedback on this issue.
you can feel free to say whatever you want to me
my cat likes to sit in my window seal but I accidentally knocked the curtain rod down. She has been laying in the bunched up curtain that’s laying on the floor, I think she likes it better than then window seal. However the window is right out the front of the house so anytime I come home after a long day I see her watching me roll up the driveway and it makes me feel good. I don’t know if it would be best to move the bunched up curtain back to the window or let her stay on the floor and not see her when I get home :(
Putting aside the bone apple tea moment… I had to replace blinds because of an overzealous dog who loved watching the street. I just had to permanently keep the blinds open for him. Maybe you could do some sort of compromise solution like that? Ig what I’m saying is leave the curtains where they are and buy new ones?
You seem alright
Remove it please. It’s an obtrusive advertisement for Ground News.
It’s incredibly annoying to see
comments: 1, only to click the post to see an ad. It makes me less inclined to interact with Lemmy at all. It’s the same kind of crap that ruined Reddit.We want to keep it in some form. Would you prefer not having the Ground News link?
That would certainly be preferable. I don’t think we should be advertising.
Beyond that, it would be much better if there were a way to not have the not be counted as a comment. Comments are what humans do. They’re meant to be interacted with. I can’t interact with a bot, other than rolling my eyes at it.
The overwhelming majority of comments I’m seeing indicate they’d like to see it gone. Why are you opposed to listening to the people who create and consume all of the content in this space?
We want to keep it in some form.
There’s your problem.
You’re not really looking for feedback if you’ve already made up your mind. Stop pretending to listen to the community if you’re ignoring the countless blocks and downvotes. That’s your feedback right there
How about you remove the bot and then fix whatever problems you have without doubling down on the bot solution? If you want community feedback on mod overburden, I’m sure people will be willing to help with that. But stop forcing the bot.
Although this is a fair point, I think that there is a difference between saying, “the moderation team finds it useful and would like to keep it,” vs “We have already decided that we are keeping it no matter what.”
This discussion is to help us guide the community’s next steps from an informed position.
Which of those are you trying to say? Because it very much comes across as the latter when you say stuff like “deleting the bot is not an option” and “off the table”.
If you guys find it helpful from a mod perspective, it might be more appropriate to develop some mod tooling, like a browser extension, rather than pushing it on the users.
Can you elaborate on how it’s useful?
Just have it notify the mod team when a post appears from a questionable source.
