[META] MBFC bot

The news mod team has asked to no longer be a part of the project until we have a composite tool that polls multiple sources for a more balanced view.

It will take a few hours, but FOR NOW there won't be a bot giving reviews of the source.

The goal was simple: make it easier to show biased sources. This was to give you and the mods a better view of what we were looking at.

The mod team is in agreement: one source of truth isn't enough. We are working on a tool to give a composite score, from multiple sources, all open source.

125 comments

Keep it gone. MBFC and others are not a source of truth.
Adding multiple sources of bias does not produce an unbiased result.
- 2nd. It's just not necessary. Frankly what's more off putting is the outright bizarre insistence on the mods part and outright denial of feedback. If the bot comes back I'm blocking the community, there are other streams for news.
  Edit: didn't realize the "new and improved" bot is back. Good luck yall.
  
  Wouldn't it be easier to just block the bot?
- I disagree. I often want to check the reliability of sources. And a composite would be great, because MBFC is obviously heavily flawed.
- Ok. Think your response through.
  That means all news outlets are biased as well. This is why we want something that gives a composite score. If all sources say "this news outlet is shit", maybe we take it with a grain of salt, or maybe we black list it. At a minimum, it helps mods and readers get a context of the content.
  
  I've thought it through. We should not outsource critical thinking and media literacy.
  
  I think the problem arises from the fact that I don't know what you mean by "this news outlet is shit". Maybe we can define exactly what we mean here and block such news sites from being posted.
  I don't think bias can be correlated with article quality, and we should be engaging with articles and ideas based on the merits within, not some aggregate made up thing like "bias". I'm not saying it's not a real thing, just that it's made up and subjective enough to be in my view a useless measure and a fruitless endeavour to get a meaningful measure in the first place.
  If you want a bunch of opinions on the usefulness of an article then we have votes already.
  Obviously I don't have the context of a mod, so if there are specific cases where you need a bias rating, however flawed, to do that job effectively then sure but I think that's best developed as say a browser extension (or maybe one exists already) so it's at least opt in.
  EDIT: Also want to say I appreciate both the call for feedback and also the decision to opt out of the bot for now.

No one wants this bot. In the last thread asking for feedback there was an overwhelming majority that did not want it. You’re attached to it because you made it. People don’t want it. It happens. Stop it.
- I didn't make the bot. I'm working on the aggregate tool, which isn't developed yet.
  The votes were overwhelmingly more positive than negative about it. We had the vocal minority against it, but the ones who wanted it let it be known.
  
  Seems like we’re not reading the same thread https://lemmy.world/post/18775630

Good riddance.

Why do you insist on fixing the bot instead of directing your energy elsewhere? Fixing the media bias bot to not have any bias is a fool's errand.
- The last sticky thread actually had some really good feedback, like using a fact checker that is part of the International Fact Checking Network (of which MBFC is not a member) and many other similarly great suggestions.
  One of the issues might be in the name. We don’t want to create a bias bot. That seems like a fool’s errand, which is one thing we learned in the process of implementing the MBFC bot. We want to create something that makes people aware of posts that are from medium to low quality sources. Obviously, if the source is super sketchy, we’d delete it, but there’s a lot of grey area where we leave things up.
  
  Mods should take note that this is how you listen to community feedback. Some actual learning is happening here, instead of doubling down we saw in the other thread
  
  There's obviously no problem with incorporating other sources as well but, as I pointed out in that other thread, MBFC uses the IFCN for fact-checking per their methodology and Wikipedia page. They also explain why they use IFCN fact-checkers in their FAQ.

Don't grade sources on leftness or rightness. It's relative. Aggregation doesn't fix the problem of Overton shift.
- My goal with the composite score is to grade based on how factual they are, not political leaning.

Rule 1 Ban Count: 5
@LagrangePoint@lemmy.world (Permaban)
@aniki@lemmings.world (15 day ban)
@catloaf@lemm.ee (15 day ban)
@DoctorButts@kbin.melroy.org (Permaban)
@stormesp@lemm.ee (15 day ban)
Not a good look, mods.
- I've been busy with work. I'll review the bans. I can say that none were banned by me.
- https://a.lemmy.world/lemmy.world/modlog/view?target=4123405
  Comment that caused the ban is in the logs
  https://a.lemmy.world/lemmy.world/u/stormesp@lemm.ee
  No comments removed, but running theme was attacking mods (well, me). Yes, we're mods, and I don't take action against people arguing with me, but the other mods will enforce the rules evenly.
  https://a.lemmy.world/lemmy.world/modlog/view?target=6038477
  Reason is in the logs, and aligns with community rules
  https://a.lemmy.world/lemmy.world/u/aniki@lemmings.world
  Reasons aren't noted, but ready to see when you read their last few comments in news
  https://a.lemmy.world/lemmy.world/modlog/view?target=3325340
  Reason given, and valid, in the logs.
  What I discovered: people got pissed at the mods for wanting something, and our reasons be damned.
  What I'm making isn't a bot, but an API, but everybody got pissed I wanted ANYTHING that would help detect false news.
  I even got rid of MBFC, but that's not enough. I get shit on for making an open source tool, unrelated to the bot.
  
  What I’m making isn’t a bot, but an API, but everybody got pissed I wanted ANYTHING that would help detect false news.
  That's not really clear from your opening post. I don't mean that to be critical, just saying the opening post sounded very much like the pending release of bot v2.
  
  You think that's all legit? I don't see permaban levels of rule breaking at all there. More admin and moderator boneheadedness causing mild irritation with users. You're asking for feedback, then ignore most of that feedback, and now ban disagreement because they're understandably frustrated with your responses.

The news mod team has asked to no longer be a part of the project until we have a composite tool that polls multiple sources for a more balanced view.
Thank you. It is often difficult to change course once it is set. I appreciate the !news team reaching out to the community and acting on their concerns.

No one wants a bot.
- I do.
  
  Ditto

So if it's still showing up what does that mean?
- the admin who manages the bot hasn't had a chance to disable it for our community yet.
  
  What if they say no to turning it off?

IMO no need for any bot. As long as articles are factually correct there should be no problem where they are from.
I know someone spent a lot of time writing a cool bot, but sometimes less is more.
- Seriously... i just cant understand whats the train of thought on all news related .world communities with this bot, its just mental. All that is needed from the mods is to take down articles that have demonstrated fake news / are factually incorrect. Not to write code for a bot that uses really sketchy websites as their reference.

I liked it. Even a biased MBFC that is consistent in it's bias has value, as you can take the bias into perspective on interpreting the rating.

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?
  
  .
- 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.
  
  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.

The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
- Go home, dude. You're drunk. Oh. That's me.
  
  "Check yourself." —The MBFC bot

I'm absolutely for the bot and I know I'm not alone. I like having it and I find it useful. I don't know why other people think it's "a source of truth" like I'm some mindless sheep who can't think on my own. I can and do take its rating with a grain of salt.
I don't like sports but you don't see me asking admins to remove those subs. It's selfish of people to ask for it to take it down for everyone. A good aspect of using Lemmy is being able to customize your experience--so do that. If you don't like bots, hide them all in the settings or block them individually. It's that simple.
Now that I think of it, maybe Lemmy should ask new users how they want to experience the site when creating their accounts.
- Because a lot of people don't spend effort researching the sources. When the mods present MBFC ratings on each post without any explanation or context, it's an endorsement of MBFC and their opinion, and presents it as a reliable source.
  If people want to do the research to evaluate a source, they can do that on their own. Presenting a biased source like MBFC is counterproductive to that goal.
  
  Because a lot of people don’t spend effort researching the sources
  I don't think that's fair or true, especially on Lemmy. We don't need babysitting. And even if it is an endorsement, what examples of reviews do you have that call MBFC into question? I say we don't bog down ourselves with whether they labeled something center-left that may be center-right or whatnot. What matters is the facts. Everyone can have a say in how they interpret whatever slant they find. Nobody takes it as the ultimate judge. We don't need it to be impeccably accurate and perfect, either.
  In my case, I pay little attention to the rating on sources I already trust. Instead, I use it to hold obvious propagandists to face the quality of their posts. I have many instances of that happening. There's value in this.
  If people want to do the research to evaluate a source, they can do that on their own.
  This is one way to get started doing that. It's a convenient shortcut for the search I was going to do anyway. I'm surprised you preach about source evaluation and push back on this in a post about allowing for multiple sources.

What I wish we had is a tool for showing which sources tend to be most statistically correlated with each other, without trying to place them on a linear spectrum.
- Can you give me an example? I may be able to code it
  
  I was thinking of something like the graph of subreddits from this paper—although I think that’s based on active user overlap, and I don’t know if there’s a similar metric that would cover all news sites.
  
  Interesting, almost sounds like a graphdb + magnitude project
  Cool stuff

Thank you mods.

125 comments