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.
My personal view is to remove the bot. I don’t think we should be promoting one organisations particular views as an authority. My suggestion would be to replace it with a pinned post linking to useful resources for critical thinking and analysing news. Teaching to fish vs giving a fish kind of thing.
If we are determined to have a bot like this as a community then I would strongly suggest at the very least removing the bias rating. The factuality is based on an objective measure of failed fact checks which you can click through to see. Although this still has problems, sometimes corrections or retractions by the publisher are taken note of and sometimes not, leaving the reader with potentially a false impression of the reliability of the source.
For the bias rating, however, it is completely subjective and sometimes the claimed reasons for the rating actually contradict themselves or other 3rd party analysis. I made a thread on this in the support community but TLDR, see if you can tell the specific reason for the BBC’s bias rating of left-centre. I personally can’t. Is it because they posted a negative sounding headline about Trump once or is it biased story selection? What does biased story selection mean and how is it measured? This is troubling because in my view it casts doubt on the reliability of the whole system.
I can’t see how this can help advance the goal (and it is a good goal) of being aware of source bias when in effect, we are simply adding another bias to contend with. I suspect it’s actually an intractable problem which is why I suggest linking to educational resources instead. In my home country critical analysis of news is a required course but it’s probably not the case everywhere and honestly I could probably use a refresher myself if some good sources exist for that.
Thanks for those involved in the bot though for their work and for being open to feedback. I think the goal is a good one, I just don’t think this solution really helps but I’m sure others have different views.
One issue with poor media literacy is that I don’t think people are going to go out of their way to improve their literacy on their own just from a pinned post. We could include a link in the bot’s comment to a resource like that though.
Do you think that the bias rating would be improved by aggregating multiple factors checkers’ opinions into one score?
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?
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.
To clarify what MBFC considers “MIXED” factual reporting (the same rating they give known disinformation factory Breitbart):
Further, while The Guardian has failed several fact checks, they also produce an incredible amount of content; therefore, most stories are accurate, but the reader must beware, and hence why we assign them a Mixed rating for factual reporting.
They list like five fact checks, while The Guardian puts out basically quintuple that every day. And moreover, this is the sort of asinine nitpick that they classify as a “fact check”.
“Private renting is making people ill.” “Private renting is making people ill, but maybe this happens with other housing situations too, we don’t know, so we rate this as false.”
MBFC’s ratings for “factual reporting” are a joke.
I think it should be removed
deleted by creator
Get rid of the bot
Remove it.
No need for a bot. Obvious misinformation should be removed by the mods. Bias is too subjective to be adjudicated by the mods. Just drop it already. It’s consistently downvoted into oblivion for a reason. The feedback has been petty damn obvious. This whole thread is just because the mods are so sure they’re right that they can’t listen to the feedback they already got. Just kill the bot.
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?
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.
.
The bot is basically a spammer saying “THIS ARTICLE SUCKS EVEN THOUGH I DIDN’T READ IT” on every damn post. If that was a normal user account you’d ban it.
Holy moly, people seem to really be upset with this bot. I like it because it can call out when someone is doing something shady with their news sources when people like me (that don’t know news sources by heart) read a posting.
We have a lot of repeat users in here that I personally feel (and I could be wrong) that have ulterior motives, like being a foreign actor spreading misinformation, trying to sew division, and lots of other foreign and domestic actors that are obsessed with one thing and throw the baby out with the bathwater (for example people obsessed with Gaza and Israel war just being nasty in general because they’re angry - I’m not saying that scenario is not wrong and fucked, but this bot can help illuminate patterns in their behavior which can help us regular people tag them accordingly as a single issue participant so they are more informed when engaging that person)
My suggestion is to be very careful about crowd-sourcing the rating process. Nearly every post I go into this bot is super negative on its downvotes. Rather than just simply blocking the bot, people are retaliating against something they don’t agree with. You would likely see that translate to your crowd-sourcing rating also at best. At worst you would see bad actors focused on division and misinformation making a fuckery of it all.
I’m not saying don’t include the community, but brainstorm with this potential pitfall in mind.
I like this community, and want to see it continue to be as factually correct and represented fairly, and appreciate the mods and their ongoing challenges with the people that would seek to upset the apple cart at any opportunity.
I think the bot adds value and applaud the honest effort to make improvements.
It’s fine to use MBFC as a tool when you are writing a comment calling out a bad source. You don’t need a bot for that.
The down voting is for several reasons, Jeff laid it out well. The people who don’t like it’s ratings though have a larger worry that blocking it does not help. If MBFC, and thus the bot, are biased then the entire conversation is shifted around that bias. Blocking is useful if you find something an eyesore. It’s not useful in fighting misinformation.
I think the bot is incredibly useful. The criticism falls under a very specific group of users being very loud about their preferred source not ranking the way they expect.
Linking additional sources will improve it. Wikipedia maintains an active list and has an incentive to do so. Personally, I’d like to see a transparent methodology applied to a source: number of articles retracted silently, corrections issued in last 30 days, etc.
That having been said, I’d rather see efforts invested in other areas rather than inventing yet another “weighing” function for multiple ratings. Let us decide if mbfc is good enough or if we prefer ad fontes or Wikipedia or whoever. Give us two or three options and let us decide on our own.
The bot is basically loud as fuck in a way that disrupts the comment feed.
Imagine how comments should create and add to a conversation. Imagine how various lemmy clients feed or service that conversation….
Now imagine how a double dropdown big as fuck post says “fuck you” to that conversation.
Just please consider how the form of your shit can be just as imposing as the content, which I really appreciate.
Yet somehow your posts always have me thinking “shut the fuck up” which seems antithetical to building a community.
Unfortunately the bot is fatally flawed as long as it’s just repeating MBFC information. I would be interested in a community program but I have the same end worry. What’s the risk that we create an echo chamber? It might be better than an echo chamber based on MBFC ratings but it’s still an issue worth worrying about.
That said I’m down to try a community approach.
