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.
Just use archive.org! At least then youβre not getting an AI hallucinated βsummaryβ of the article.
Ahh you see they pulled a sneaking in ya. You canβt its simply deflecting from the argument.
When it comes to tools that help you stay informed, Iβd say the opposite is true.
If one wants to maintain ignorance, they should have to do so at their own inconvenience.
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 thatβs 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 thatβs 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 arenβt the ones that implemented the bot. It was the admins, so no shit the mods couldnβt do anything about it.
A slight follow-up: the mod log on Lemmy is public, and I canβt 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 fuckinβ loser that isnβt worth listening toβ¦
I donβt hate bots, I donβt 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 donβt hate bots, I donβt hate facts, and I donβt like yelling. Frankly itβs 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 βmisinformationβ claim, so forgive me if I donβt believe your very first sentence. Itβs 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 itβs 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 βgoogle itβ. Sorry itβs not on me to provide proof for others claims.
Me after posting:
βOhh, a reply notification for my dank postβ
Me reading my inbox:
βItβs a fucking bot.β
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 βmany failed fact checks over the last 5 yearsβ 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 donβt 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 doesnβt 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.
