Five @ Five @slrpnk.net

Admin at Slrpnk.net

---

Read more

Posts

747

Comments

331

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Not just any bot spam - the most downvoted spam in Lemmy history. It is now more unpopular than the most popular Lemmy account is popular.

I'm quite certain if I ignored the warning, I would earn a ban. The difference isn't between the World and ML mods, it's between me trying to play nice with their inconsistent bullshit rules, and the people getting banned from ML not respecting the predictable bullshit rules of that instance.

It's obviously more than a disagreement about how to define 'spamming.' The MBFC bot is now the most downvoted account in Lemmy history, and it is now more unpopular than the most popular Lemmy account is popular. It appears in every !news, !world, and !politics thread where it is experienced as spam by the vast majority of users.

But the harm it does is greater than merely taking up pagespace. It distorts the discussion in favor of MBFC's author's right-wing views, and gives the World mods the pretense of neutrality when removing left-wing voices from their communities. The MBFC has been widely discredited. For example, Wikipedia's Reliable Sources Noticeboard rates sources as generally reliable (green), no consensus (yellow), mostly unreliable (red).

Giving this joke of a resource an institutional place in the flagship communities of the Lemmy's largest instance are an embarrassment to the entire Threadiverse project. Due to WP's policy of neutrality, it's even more damning when you look under the hood and read the specific criticisms that lead its policy of not linking MBFC in its pages. I am being threatened by the mods for reposting excepts from those criticisms in reply to the MBFC bot spam.

If your criticism of the bot is too regular or too persuasive, the mods will call you a spammer.

The irony saying that while the World mods are actively censoring criticism.

Wow, you're really reaching there. I'm asking you to stop blaming women for men's problems. There's a group of people who aren't doing that, and if you don't want to be called a misogynist, follow the example of that group.

I think you misunderstood me. I do think men should have an analogous space. I support !mensliberation@lemmy.ca 100%.

If you didn't misunderstand me, men don't need a space specifically for comparing their issues negatively against women's issues. That space is everywhere and anywhere, as evidenced by this discussion occurring in !asklemmy@lemmy.world and collecting overwhelmingly positive upvotes.

We had to shutter !twoxchromosomes@slrpnk.net because of persistent and vocal judgement by a large population of Lemmy users, many from Lemmy.World. So no, talking about issues specific to their gender is definitely not a double standard where men get the short end of the stick.

This is why you get judged. Because you so nakedly put on display how much ignorance and little empathy you have for women's issues.

!mensliberation@lemmy.ca exists specifically for men who understand their issues in society are intersectional with women's issues, and that solving them requires uniting to end patriarchy. Any discussion outside of that framing deserves the assumption that it's a misogynist men's pity party.

This is not a case of copy/pasting the same comment in multiple threads. Please look closer at the comments and the reports. One comment is repeated once, but that is due to it being topical to MBFC's take on the BBC, and both articles were from the BBC.

Also, I'm alarmed you consider contextualization of MBFC in comments that reply to the Bot as 'off-topic.' The Bot created the topic of MBFC's credibility by linking to it as an authoritative source. If a comment about the credibility of the BBC in reply to an article published by the BBC is on-topic, then a comment about the credibility of MBFC as a reply to a review published by MBFC is also on-topic.

I appreciate you reading and responding to my concern instead of censoring me like your fellow mod in !news and !world:

• Censored by !news as 'Stop Spamming'
• Censored by !news as 'Stop Spamming'
• Censored by !world as 'Stop Spamming'
• Censored by !news as 'Stop Spamming'
• Censored by !world as 'Stop Spamming'
• Censored by !news as 'Stop Spamming'
• Censored by !world as 'Stop Spamming'
• Censored by !news as 'Stop Spamming'

More than half of these occurred in a community you moderate. Do you approve of this use of the term 'spamming' to silence criticism?

Exposing a free API for anyone to use is not typical trade practice for respectable fact-checking operations. You may be able to get free access as a non-profit organization, and that may be worth persuing. On the other hand, there's a fundamental problem in the disconnect between the goals of real fact-checking websites and the kind of bot you are trying to create.

What do Wikipedia editors think about MBFC?

This site has always bothered me as it tends to look at the audience of a source as an indicator of the bias of that source; which I find questionable. I’ve also noticed apparent contradictions in its evaluations. More importantly, I just don’t see a reason to believe they have accurately evaluated 2,600+ media sources as claimed.

-- O3000

What do Wikipedia editors think about MBFC?

I agree with the others who have noted that this website is unreliable. It’s self-published (WP:SELFPUB) and there is no evidence that there is strong editorial control or that the authors are subject-matter experts. Particularly on the highly charged topic of media, editors must rely on high-quality sources (the Columbia Journalism Review and university press-published books are examples).

-- Neutrality

What do Wikipedia editors think about MBFC?

Can you show me an example of them getting a site's bias wrong? I've had misgivings about that site from the moment I discovered it, but I've yet to see any evidence of them being categorically wrong. -- ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants

I think it's more a matter of MediaBiasFactCheck having an implicit bias of its own - a tendency to center its political compass on the United States and a tendency to weigh editorial on the US heavy compared to international editorials. A perfect example is this: The Epoch Times is notoriously inaccurate with regard to reportage related to China. It's also pretty virulently right-wing. However, it's not run by actual fascists, which by US standards probably makes its bias right-center rather than extreme. Its' anti-China bias isn't that much more galling than that of Foreign Policy - which the website erroneously calls a least-biased source. As somebody who used to hate-read FP mainly to find out what American imperial actions to get angry about in any given month, until their pro-American bias became too sickening to handle, I find that a little bit questionable to say the least. But I have to measure everything through the terrifying funhouse mirror that is the American Overton Window.

-- Simonm223