108
[META] MBFC bot
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
108 points (89.1% liked)
News
36344 readers
547 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Honestly; I think the "Negative" reactions to the bot are overblown and only done by a vocal minority who are sockpuppeting followed by a few people who are irrationally angry that the bot can be, GASP! Dare I SAY IT???!!11, Wrong.
Personally I don't find the bot problematic at all; and I think it could easily be blocked or ignored by people who find it too inaccurate. So I find it extremely disappointing that the mods are listening to the vocal minority about this.
That being said; I do understand why Mods want to make the bot more accurate. It's assessments and information can easily make obvious extremists and trolls more obvious to the naked eye; and can help people consume media with some grains of salt. More sources of data are good for accuracy.
Anyone who disagrees with me is a bot!
Love that they are actually using that reasoning...
Sockpuppetting? You have any indication of that?
We do. Admins found dozens of downvote alts and nuked them at the same time. Seems folks aren't content to just state their opinion and leave it at that, and instead they feel compelled to overwhelm the system to give the illusion of uniformity.
Props to the LW admin who uncovered and banned the vote manipulation ring. Its existence is troubling.
I did a vote audit of the Soliciting Feedback from the Mods thread, and none of the sock accounts that were banned three days ago voted on the post or the most highly upvoted or downvoted comments. If you don't believe me, I suggest asking an admin you trust to repeat the audit.
The outrage about the bot seems extremely organic, and any sockpuppetting going on is small compared to the overwhelming number of legitimate accounts casting votes that are apparent from the logs. The uniformity of the consensus does not appear to be artificial at all.
These people were specifically trying to get the bot removed? Must have hit quite a nerve. I know it was biased in favor of Israel, but it must have been even worse. That bot sucks so bad people make mass sockpuppet accounts just to tell you they want it gone
You're taking the wrong lesson from these findings.
I was joking. Just like you can't be seriously claiming there is no consensus that the bot sucks and that all the net downvotes for that bot are due to a small minority of sockpuppeteers?
I didn't claim there was no consensus, or that "all" the downvotes were sockpuppets. We have evidence that some of them were, which makes distilling the overall sentiment pretty difficult.
So based on your other comment, the "evidence" you're referring to here is merely that vote manipulation had occurred in some other community?
No, in this community. We were told that the admins found a vote manipulation ring in our threads. I don't have admin level access, so I have no idea where they voted for what.
Ok, but you did claim that you had evidence that some of the downvotes were sockpuppets, contrary to the analysis discussed in this comment.
Yeah, we were told they disrupted a downvote ring. I have no fucking idea where those accounts voted, except that we took vote totals with a grain of salt because we were in the dark. I'm frankly used to being bombarded with downvotes every time i comment in this community (edit: One person went out of their way to downvote each of my last 7 comments, for example.). So in my eyes, votes were (and continue to be) compromised, and we were informed about the ring while we were deliberating bot feedback. I tried to connect the dots with incomplete information because I'm not an admin. What else are you looking for here?
Well, the point I've been trying to make is that on balance, mods have been reluctant to engage with negative feedback, and I think this is a salient example.
I think you can imagine how, from the perspective of a community member, it would feel like you've started with the belief that the bot is good, and sought feedback in that context.
The erroneous assumption you've made regarding vote manipulation is a pretty clear example of that.
This is what I mean by users feeling as though their opinions have been dismissed.
I argued against the bot for a week. I hated the damn thing, and I pointed to the negative feedback as evidence in my discussions. I also held off on making sweeping assessments or making any rushed decisions because a vote manipulation ring was simultaneously uncovered, and we had no idea how deep the manipulation went. Could the feedback have been manipulated? No idea! Should we go by votes only? No idea!
I took the time to let the team read the feedback and discuss the costs and benefits, and in the end the votes were only part of the picture. Another part is the visceral commitment of a vocal minority to overwhelming the community with commentary (and reports) to such an extent that the people who are calm and supportive get drowned out and downvoted, along with anyone who happens to agree with them. Not entirely sure those folks have committed as much energy to downvoting every critical comment as was the case on the other side though.
The team took 12 days to work through disagreements (there were many) so we could come to a consensus position, and lo and behold, the bot is gone. The fact that the people who want the bot gone feel like they're being dismissed is flabbergasting to me. It's gone. Mission accomplished!
Ok mate. I appreciate you taking the time.
I get that everyone on the mod team seems well intentioned, and trying to navigate this situation as best they can as volunteers, with limited resources and limited control.
What point does a "bias" bot serve if it can be incorrect? And if it can be incorrect then why should we trust it at all?
You may as well write a bot that posts "remember, don't trust everything you read online and use critical thinking when you're doing your own research" to every post.
Honestly, the bias piece was never the important piece for us. It was the credibility piece.
Just trying to give some insight into why we used it in this community.
Then you understand the negative reactions. Especially regarding controversial topics such as Gaza where the bot preferred sources on one side to the conflict
The question is how much is it incorrect? Because the bot isn't AI or anything. MBFC's database is used in research and has been compared with other independent sources and deemed reputable enough.
Citation needed
https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/2/9/pgad286/7258994
Your source:
Domain ratings may not be as accurate as fact-checking individual pieces of content
You know -- like a stupid bot writing useless bullshit.
but they offer a convenient tool for evaluating the efficacy of antimisinformation interventions
Also my source. You know, when used like a person with more than two brain cells would. Instead of nit-picking at the bot, why don't we look at the bigger picture for the value it provides?