There are some who say it’s biased itself. I have not investigated it further.
All bots are annoying. They take screen real estate and lures me into otherwise empty comment sections.
I should block it, but I haven’t, because it is sometimes useful.
It might be better if it only posted when summoned by someone.
Maybe Lemmy could support bot posts a bit more organically, so they could be excluded from comment counts, or given a dedicated section. Eg. there could be a way to add this info to all community posts automatically.
TBH this whole bot thing seems like a Reddit holdover where people had no control over the platform.
Personally, I like the bots but I want their messages below the human messages. And since voting scores mean next to nothing in lemmy, there’s no harm.
Because the information is quite badly sourced in some ways and includes a lot of caveats. And the moderators of the subreddit have not added said caveats to the bot message.
Would you downvote a bot that said the rotten tomatoes score in every post in a sub about movies?
Personally I think rotten tomatoes is a terrible guide to tell if a movie is good… But I still cant see why id downvote it, it is just extra information I can ignore if wanted.
Bad comparison. Rotten Tomatoes is user generated. And opinions on movies have much less reprocussions than opinion on news sources. Rotten tomatoes makes clear it is the “opinion” on the movie.
MBFC is some random guy with no credential’s opinion. But they present their opinion as a neutral impartial rating.
Also I don’t downvote, disabled on my instance, just saying why others might.
Some random guy may not be the best, but also a hivemind can often be just as bad. For instance if lemmy.ca ranked news sources, and lemmy.ml ranked the same news sources, I imagine the results would be different.
I agree the impact is different for sure, I just used the first “ranked” system that came to mind that I figured you would be familiar with.
Example. If you rank Empire Strike back a 5/10 and I rank it a 8/10, then we rank Avatar and I give it a 4/10 and you give it a 9/10, on imdb they would both be ranked a 6.5/10. on RT one would be a 100% and the other 50%. (Why I don’t care for RT)
Nobody likes being told they and their favorite sources are biased, they think they’re the only ones who can see clearly and it’s everyone else who is biased.
Politico Europe - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Politico Europe:
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.politico.eu/article/tim-walz-democrat-us-politics-jd-vance-role-model-viktor-orban-elections/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Why is this bot always getting downvoted? It’s just providing information.
There are some who say it’s biased itself. I have not investigated it further.
All bots are annoying. They take screen real estate and lures me into otherwise empty comment sections. I should block it, but I haven’t, because it is sometimes useful.
It might be better if it only posted when summoned by someone.
Maybe Lemmy could support bot posts a bit more organically, so they could be excluded from comment counts, or given a dedicated section. Eg. there could be a way to add this info to all community posts automatically.
TBH this whole bot thing seems like a Reddit holdover where people had no control over the platform.
It’s bad information. See the pinned posts for details.
Personally, I like the bots but I want their messages below the human messages. And since voting scores mean next to nothing in lemmy, there’s no harm.
Because the information is quite badly sourced in some ways and includes a lot of caveats. And the moderators of the subreddit have not added said caveats to the bot message.
Would you downvote a bot that said the rotten tomatoes score in every post in a sub about movies?
Personally I think rotten tomatoes is a terrible guide to tell if a movie is good… But I still cant see why id downvote it, it is just extra information I can ignore if wanted.
Bad comparison. Rotten Tomatoes is user generated. And opinions on movies have much less reprocussions than opinion on news sources. Rotten tomatoes makes clear it is the “opinion” on the movie.
MBFC is some random guy with no credential’s opinion. But they present their opinion as a neutral impartial rating.
Also I don’t downvote, disabled on my instance, just saying why others might.
Some random guy may not be the best, but also a hivemind can often be just as bad. For instance if lemmy.ca ranked news sources, and lemmy.ml ranked the same news sources, I imagine the results would be different.
I agree the impact is different for sure, I just used the first “ranked” system that came to mind that I figured you would be familiar with.
Example. If you rank Empire Strike back a 5/10 and I rank it a 8/10, then we rank Avatar and I give it a 4/10 and you give it a 9/10, on imdb they would both be ranked a 6.5/10. on RT one would be a 100% and the other 50%. (Why I don’t care for RT)
But your right, not a fair comparison
Also, movies are entertainment, not misinformation and disinformation shaping our society, so there’s less scrutiny.
(Yeah, media shapes our views too, but not as much as direct news journalism.)
Nobody likes being told they and their favorite sources are biased, they think they’re the only ones who can see clearly and it’s everyone else who is biased.