PhilipTheBucket

I'll send them a link and an example of how to use it tomorrow.

We're not roasting the volunteer mods because we can't ignore the bot. We're roasting the volunteer mods because the experience of having someone in a position of power over your environment, and having them show callous indifference to how everyone in the community sees it, and what we want them to be doing with their position of power, leads people to start roasting. Sometimes out of all possible proportion to how big a deal the thing being complained about actually is.

It's part of the healthy interplay of human society that keeps the social contract well-maintained. Take it as a sign of love, that we value this community and want it to function well.

I'm really curious what the response to this is going to be.

How much are you paying for the MBFC API? The page says it isn't free. I'll give you an API endpoint which will check sources against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, if you pay me half of whatever you were paying MBFC previously. That list is quite a lot better than relying on MBFC.

I already scraped the list. It'll take around an hour for my script to finish going down the sources and assigning web sites to each one, but I can have a working API endpoint for you tomorrow morning. I can do the bot part also, if you prefer. That's probably easier than making a new endpoint and hooking it to a bot and debugging the connection and all.

Like I said, I think the idea that readers won't be able to determine that Breitbart is unreliable is missing a pretty big elephant in the misinformational room. If the issue that's causing you to keep MBFC is finding a better source that's programmatic, though, then solving that is almost trivially easy and at least seems like some kind of step forward.

Next, you'll be telling me that UniversalMonk violates rule 7 pretty much every day.

In what way does having the MediaBiasFactCheck bot help with misinformation? It's not very accurate, probably less than the average Lemmy reader's preexisting knowledge level. People elsewhere in these comments are posting specific examples, in a coherent, respectful fashion.

Most misinformation clearly comes in the form of accounts that post a steady stream of "reliable" articles which don't technically break the rules, and/or in bad-faith comments. You may well be doing plenty of work on that also, I'm not saying you're not, but it doesn't seem from the outside like a priority in the way that the bot is. What is the use case where the bot ever helped prevent some misinformation? Do you have an example when it happened?

I'm not trying to be hostile in the way that I'm asking these questions. It's just very strange to me that there is an overwhelming consensus by the users of this community in one direction, and that the people who are moderating it are pursuing this weird non-answer way of reacting to the overwhelming consensus. What bad thing would happen if you followed the example of the !news moderators, and just said, "You know what? We like the bot, but the community hates it, so out it goes." It doesn't seem like that should be a complex situation or a difficult decision, and I'm struggling to see why the moderation team is so attached to this bot and their explanations are so bizarre when they're questioned on it.

The bot is instituted by the Admins

When did this happen? The admins instituted it for !politics, and the admins changed their minds about having it for !news and friends, but wanted to keep it in !politics?

with good reason

What's the reason?

Unfortunately that's not how cereal works.

There's a lot of misinformation about cereal, claims that just aren't supported in reality. And one of those false claims is that you can just put cereal in a bowl with milk in it.

At it's core, cereal is just a series of very small, crunchy loaves of bread, in a single bowl.

That creates problems.

Lmao

Online trolls from the Kremlin-backed Internet Research Agency used social media to promote Stein’s candidacy during the 2016 campaign, according to an indictment brought by special counsel Robert Mueller against the Russian organization and 13 of its employees. The Russians’ pro-Stein efforts included paid advertisements on Facebook that explicitly encouraged Americans to vote for Stein, according to the indictment.

• https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/30/politics/jill-stein-russia-documents-senate-request/index.html

A summation of the report’s findings on “comprehensive anti-Hillary Clinton operations” said while the group’s assumed Twitter personas had some pro-Clinton content, “the developed Left-wing Twitter personas were still largely anti-Clinton and expressed pro-Bernie Sanders and pro-Jill Stein sentiments.”

Likewise, the report said “pro-Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein content” were among the group’s go-to themes across other platforms.

• https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/17/politics/jill-stein-senate-intelligence/index.html

The tactics and strategies that the Kremlin directed included every major social media platform you can think of — Facebook, Instagram, Twitter — and a few you’d never suspect, including Pinterest, LinkedIn and 4Chan. The hashtags alone tell the story— #MAGA #TrumpTrain #Hillary4Prison #ZombieHillary #SickHillary. Along with anti-Clinton stories, they also pushed out messages against Trump’s primary rivals like Sen. Ted Cruz and former Gov. Jeb Bush. Once in the general election, they pumped up third-party candidates to siphon support away from Clinton with posts including, “A vote for Jill Stein is not a wasted vote.”

• https://rollcall.com/2019/10/15/the-most-important-document-you-may-ever-read/

Not everything I don't like is Russian. But some Russian things, I don't like.

Finally, something on which we can agree.

There are a lot of people in politics who are opposing RCV, because it erodes their power. Some of them are Democrats. Sure. That wasn't my question. My question was, why is the Green Party spending so much energy pursuing a doomed effort which can only elect Donald Trump, and such an infinitesimal amount of energy on advocating for fixing the system in a way that would let them actually get elected in the future?

It's a strange allocation of priorities.

I did look around for things the Green Party has done to support Ranked Choice Voting. You've sent me the RV tag search, which has a press release from January 2024 and the one before that, from February 2023, dealing with RCV. Hooray.

I did find a substantive thing that Jill Stein herself did to support it in 2017, which actually had something to do with Maine putting it into action: https://mainegreens.org/news/in-the-news/107-jill-stein-joins-push-to-save-ranked-choice-voting-in-maine

That's good. Why hasn't she done anything since then? Why is always the focus on attacking the Democrats, and the focus if at all beyond that is a tepid hand-wave in the direction of RCV, when that is the solution that would lead to them being able to get elected? I didn't look very hard, but I did look, and this was the most recent thing I was able to find since January:

https://mainemorningstar.com/2024/10/07/green-party-candidate-jill-stein-praises-maine-voting-system-as-means-to-oppose-genocide/