what if they are turned out to be like this or hate other set of people? lemmy by design is defederated so even if the devs are like this, you can just simply call out them or leave their lemmy server lol. i am sure there are trans friendly lemmy servers out here.
as long as lemmy by design is against any sorta people, you dont have to boycott it.
Yeah lets ignore the lead dev’s opinions on stuff its not like they have power over the project and a big number of users on their server.
Its ironic you say this from the ani.social instance which was previously defederated from ml because the lead devs thinks all anime is degenerate or something like that and it ruined the anime community since ani.social was still too small
Like I said in my earlier comment, if the devs make changes in lemmy which by design discriminates any sorta people, yeah people should be leaving lemmy. Twitter just shoves and boosts hate and polically biased posts (favoring elon, the app’s ceo). Lemmy devs are just extreme leftists (tankies in lemmy’s language), but it doesn’t push or shove their views onto me or anyone (in my knowledge).
Its ironic you say this from the ani.social instance which was previously defederated from ml because the lead devs thinks all anime is degenerate or something like that and it ruined the anime community since ani.social was still too small
lemmy.ml defederated with us, it was just one instance. it is unfair and not justified but again, I dont miss much because of that.
I’m sorry you want me to not print emails so I don’t immediately forget them when I go to the area next door? How the hell am I supposed to remember this shit then?
CentOS 7, released with Linux 3, only went out of support a month ago.
Expect to see it pop up everywhere the coming five to six years. The sort of people who still run CentOS generally aren’t the sort of people who upgrade their software unless they absolutely have to. It’s like those ATMs running that obscure version of Windows XP and 7 (although the Windows 7 Embedded release will still receives updates for a few more months)), you deploy an OS onto them, kill any accessible port you can find, and just let it do it’s thing for a couple of years.
The only reason the DOS POS systems are being phased out is that the hardware they run on can no longer be replaced easily, and even then Dosbox is sometimes used to run POS software.
In this example it is a config value that the software expects to be present, I’m guessing based on the screenshot it is to be added to the homeserver.yaml
They’d still fully consume the WAN bearer regardless of Crowdsec protecting the endpoint. For that you need a scrubbing centre to dump the traffic onto.
Choosing one organization to be the arbiter of truth and bias gives them way too much power. I think fact checking should be the responsibility of whoever reads the article.
Yes, everyone should always do all their own work every time. Trust nothing! Formula of gravity? Newton and Einstein might be liars, and all the science textbooks could be complicit. Do your own research. Conduct your own experiments. Is the Earth flat? Grab a sailboat and find out!
Nearly everything has various types of subjective bias. This is not a good excuse to believe nothing when bias can simply be examined and taken into account.
Correct. Mathematical certainty is an impossible standard, and seeking it in news reporting is an unrealistic and silly objective that results in nothing useful.
Yes but have you considered that by using a fixed source you can shift the Overton window to where you want it to be?
At least I acknowledge that the Overton window on lemmy.ml leans to the left. This is just slowly tilting the Overton window on lemmy.world to the right.
I think having this post isn’t a great idea because you are just assuming the websites bias are legit. At the very least there needs to be a lot of warnings in the bots post about the websites biases and the methodology they use so the reader can come to their own conclusion.
The website itself says it’s distinctions of left and right are US based which is very skewed from the rest of the world. There should be a disclaimer or it shouldn’t be used in any world news communities.
Centrist Bias
The website follows the idea of “enlightened centrism” since if it determines a website has a left/right lean (again arbitrary) it affects the factual ratings of the sources.
Despite my personal opinions on the pointlessness of using a US based left/right bias criteria I’d feel better if it was at least kept it it’s own section but when you allow it to affect the factual rating of the source it’s just outright wrong. The factual accuracy of the website should be the sole thing that affects this rating.
Questionable Fact Checking
Even just checking some of their ratings raises doubts on the websites credibility.
“Wikipedia’s editors declared that the Anti-Defamation League cannot be trusted to give reliable information on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they overwhelmingly said the ADL is an unreliable source on antisemitism.”
Maybe Wikipedia editors are a good arbiter of truth and maybe they aren’t but as people can see there isn’t a consensus and so by choosing Media Bias/Fact Check you’re explicitly choosing to align your “truth” with this websites biases.
A standard of factuality needs to include a provision of avoiding emotionally-loaded, manipulative language. Otherwise you can pump unlimited amounts of propaganda with full factuality simply by “asking questions”.
I wont disagree that there should be a ranking for using loaded language but combining it with the factuality ranking twists what the ranking means since to the average person they’re going to read that as how accurate the facts are.
It should be its own separate rating from factuality. Again if we’re going to have to have a bot like this put clear disclaimers and ideally find a better one than this.
I disagree. I think emotional language is fundamentally the opposite of real objectivity, and cannot be honestly acknowledged as factual in any confirmable way.
It has no place in objective discussions, and employing it in any way, shape or form makes one deserve objectivity demerits.
edit: And objectivity and factuality are synonyms.
This is one of the reasons why the right is so successful. By equating emotion with lies, they erase the objections of the oppressed, and can continue with a veneer of objectivity as they advocate for genocide by seeming non-emotive and rational.
Fact-based reporting should be a measure of whether the statements and facts, express and implied, line up with the truth, and nothing more.
The Intercept getting only a “mostly factual” rating (3rd highest) despite their admittance it has never failed a fact check.
This is literally in bold at the top of the page:
Overall, we rate The Intercept progressive Left Biased based on story selection that routinely favors the left. We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to previous fabricated work and censorship of writers.
Fabricated work.
Is there anything that’s more of a capital crime in journalism than fabricating quotes? Surely we can all agree that publishing fiction as news is the opposite of factual reporting? They may not have failed a fact check in the last five years but it just isn’t possible for them to have published fabricated news without ever failing at least one. By their own admission they failed five in that incident alone.
I’m not going to die on the intercept hill here I’m fine with the fact that even though they fired the person it’s a stain on their record so sure let’s say that rating is fine.
It was one of the first 3 I checked so I’m sure I’ll find more that are problematic when I have a chance to look because it’s their methodology that’s biased. Also the other 2 I pointed out are clearly not correct.
Got rebuttals for any of my criticisms about the methodology?
Got rebuttals for any of my criticisms about the methodology?
I do!
I think the importance of American bias is overstated. What matters is that they’re transparent about it. That bias also impacts the least important thing they track. People often fixate on that metric when it has little impact on other metrics or on the most important question for this community: ‘how likely is it that this source is telling the truth?’ Left and right are relative terms that change drastically over time and space. They even mean different things at local and national levels within the same country. It’s not really an MBFC problem, it’s a the-world-is-complicated problem that isn’t easily solved. And it’s not like they’re listing far-right publications as far-left. Complaints are almost always like, “this source is center not center-left!” It’s small problems in the murky middle that shouldn’t be surprising or unexpected.
It’s also capturing something that happens more at the extremes where publications have additional goals beyond news reporting. Ignoring Fox’s problem with facts/misinfo, it doesn’t really bother me that they’re penalized for wanting to both report the news and promote a right-wing agenda. Promoting an agenda and telling the truth are often in conflict (note Fox’s problem with facts/misinfo). CBC News, for example, probably should have a slightly higher score for having no agenda beyond news reporting.
It might matter more if it impacted the other metrics, but it doesn’t really. Based on MBFC’s methodology, it’s actually impossible for editorial bias alone to impact the credibility rating without having additional problems – you can lose a max 2 points for bias, but must lose 5 to be rated “medium credibility”. I don’t know why FAIR is rated highly factual (and I’d love for them to be a bit more transparent about it) but criticizing bias leading to them being rated both highly factual and highly credible feels like less than a death blow. If it’s a problem, it seems like a relatively small one.
MBFC also isn’t an outlier compared to other organizations. This study looked at 6 bias-monitoring organizations and found them basically in consensus across thousands of news sites. If they had a huge problem with bias, it’d show in that research.
On top of that, none of this impacts this community at all. It could be a problem if the standard here was ‘highest’ ratings exclusively, but it isn’t. And no one’s proposing that it should be. I post stories from the Guardian regularly without a problem and they’re rated mixed factual and medium credibility for failing a bunch of fact checks, mostly in op-ed (And I think the Guardian is a great, paywall-less paper that should fact check a bit better).
So I think the things you point out are well buffered by their methodology and by not using the site in a terrible, draconian way.
I think the importance of American bias is overstated. What matters is that they’re transparent about it. That bias also impacts the least important thing they track.
It affects the overall credibility rating of the source, how is that the least important thing? They also seem to let it affect the factual reporting rating despite not clearly stating that in the methodology.
Based on MBFC’s methodology, it’s actually impossible for editorial bias alone to impact the credibility rating without having additional problems
This is only true specifically when you’re thinking about it as a great source can’t have its credibility rating lowered. A not great factual source can get a high credibility rating if it’s deemed centrist enough which again is arbitrary based on the (effectively) 1 guys personal opinion.
High Credibility Score Requirement: 6
Example 1
Factual Reporting Mixed: 1
No left/right bias: 3
Traffic High: 2
Example 2
Factual Reporting Mostly Factual: 2
No left/right bias: 3
Traffic Medium: 1
See how weighing credibility on a (skewed) left/right bias metric waters this down? Both of these examples would get high credibility.
On top of that, none of this impacts this community at all. It could be a problem if the standard here was ‘highest’ ratings exclusively, but it isn’t.
That’s a fair point and I did state in my original post that despite my own feelings I’d be open to something like this if the community had been more involved in the process of choosing one/deciding one is necessary and also if we had the bots post clearly call out it’s biases, maybe an explanation of its methodology and the inherent risks in it.
The way it’s been pushed from the mod first without polling the community and seeing the reaction to criticism some of which was constructive is my main issue here really.
This is only true specifically when you’re thinking about it as a great source can’t have its credibility rating lowered. A not great factual source can get a high credibility rating if it’s deemed centrist enough which again is arbitrary based on the (effectively) 1 guys personal opinion.
The impact either way is slight. I’m sure you could find a few edge cases you could make an argument about because no methodology is perfect, but each outlier represents a vanishingly small (~0.01%) amount of their content. When you look at rigorous research on the MBFC dataset though, the effect just isn’t really there. Here’s another study that concludes that the agreement between bias-monitoring organizations is so high that it doesn’t matter which one you use. I’ve looked and I can’t find research that finds serious bias or methodological problems. Looking back at the paper I posted in my last comment, consensus across thousands of news organizations is just way too high to be explainable by chance. If it was truly arbitrary as people often argue, MBFC would be an outlier. If all the methodologies were bad, the results would be all over the map because there are many more ways to make a bad methodology than a good one. What the research says is that if one methodology is better than the others, it isn’t much better.
Again, I think you make a really good argument for why MBFC and sites like it shouldn’t be used in an extreme, heavy-handed way. But it matters if it has enough precision for our purposes. Like, if I’m making bread, I don’t need a scale that measures in thousandths of a gram. A gram scale is fine. I could still churn out a top-shelf loaf with a scale that measures in 10-gram units. This bot is purely informational. People are reacting like it’s a moderation change but it isn’t – MBFC continues to be one resource among many that mods use to make decisions. Many react as though MBFC declares a source either THE BEST or THE WORST (I think a lot of those folks aren’t super great with nuance) but what it mostly does is say ‘this source is fine but there’s additional info or context worth considering.’ Critics often get bent out of shape about the ranking but almost universally neglect the fact that, if you click that link, there’s a huge report on each source that provides detailed info about their ownership history, funding model, publishing history, biases, and the press freedom of the country they’re in. Almost every time, there are reasonable explanations for the rankings in the report. I have not once ever seen someone say, like, ‘MBFC says that this is owned by John Q. Newspaperman but it’s actually owned by the Syrian government,’ or ‘they claim that they had a scandal with fabricated news but that never happened’. Is there a compelling reason why we’re worse off knowing that information? If you look at the actual reports for Breitbart and the Kyiv Independent, is there anything in there that we’re better off not knowing?
Like I kinda said in my last paragraphs you’ve got fair points that it may be good enough for what it’s being used for here (despite it’s clear biases) since it’s not being used to disallow posts. Although other commenters have said it has a pro-Zionist bias as well which is honestly more concerning than things I’ve pointed out. Haven’t had time to check beyond the ADL one.
Overall my main issue is the community wasn’t really asked if one was desired, which one should be used, how it should be used, etc. Because of that and the lack of good response by the poster I’ve already decided to follow other world news communities instead of this one.
MBFC rates it as “highly credible” despite it publishing laughably bad hit-pieces on UN officials who openly criticize Israel.
I did a debunk on one of their articles that was removed from this very community due to disinformation, but I’ve posted a screenshot of my critique here for anyone who is interested.
Honestly, as a newbie to Linux I think the ratio of well documented processes vs. “draw the rest of the fucking owl” is too damn high.
The rule seems to be that CLI familiarity is treated as though its self-evident. The exception is a ground-up documented process with no assumptions of end user knowledge.
If that could be resolved I think it would make the Linux desktop much more appealing to wider demographics.
That said, I’m proud to say that I’ve migrated my entire home studio over to linux and have not nuked my system yet. Yet… Fortunately I have backups set up.
Linux on the desktop almost never needs CLI interaction though. Maybe you’ll need to copy/paste a command from the internet to fix some sketchy hardware, but almost everything works OOTB these days.
However, self-hosting isn’t a desktop Linux thing, it’s a server Linux thing. You can host it on your desktop, but as soon as you do anything remotely server-related, CLI familiarity is pretty much essential.
That depends on your use case for desktop linux of course. For me, yabridge is the tool I needed to run VSTs on Linux. Its CLI only as far as I know.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not afraid of the CLI. Its just some tools are assuming the end user is a server admin or someone with deeper than the upper crust knowledge of how Linux works.
Don’t forget the situations where you find a good blog post or article that you can actually follow along until halfway through you get an error that the documentation doesn’t address. So you do some research and find out that they updated the commands for one of the dependency apps, so you try to piece together the updated documents with the original post, until something else breaks and you just end up giving up out of frustration.
That sounds an awful lot like modifying an ESP32 script I’ve been trying to follow from a YouTube tutorial published a while back. Research hasn’t uncovered anything for me to troubleshoot the issue so it’s a really shit experience.
That shouldn’t be too bad if you understand systemd though, right? Or is there something weird i’m missing? Do you have an example guide that illustrates the problem?
CLI familiarity is fine. CD, Nano, mkdir, rm. I am proficient with that. But I am not necessarily proficient with Docker (went with it because it worked nicely for another thing which was well documented and very straight forward). It’s just I’m trying to self host stuff. Some things like Wordpress and Immich are straightforward. Some things aren’t like Matrix and Mastodon. Lemmy is also notoriously bad.
I think if you’re talking wider demographics your model OSs are (obviously) Windows and macOS. People buy into that because CLI familiarity isn’t required. Especially with Apple products everything revolves around simplicity.
I do dream of a day when Linux can (at least somewhat) rival that. I love Linux because I am (or consider myself) intricately familiar with it and I can (theoretically) change every aspect about it. But mutability and limitless possibilities are not what makes an OS lovable to the average user. I think the advent of immutable Linux distros is a step in the right direction for mass adoption. Stuff just needs to work. Googling for StackOverflow or AskUbuntu postings shouldn’t ever be necessary when people just want to do whatever they were doing on Windows with limited technical knowledge.
However on another note, if you’re talking a home studio migration, not sure what that entails, but it sounds rather technical. I don’t want to be the guy to tell you that CLI familiarity is simply par for the course. Maybe your work shouldn’t require terminal interaction. Maybe there is a certain gap between absolutely basic linux tutorials and the more advanced ones like you suggest. Yet what I do want to say is that if you want to do repairwork on your own car it’s not exactly like that is supposed to be an accessible skill to acquire. Even if there are videos explaining step by step what you need to do, eventually you still need to get your own practice in. Stuff will break. We make mistakes and we learn from them. That is the point I’m trying to get at. Not all knowledge can be bestowed from without. Some of it just needs to grow organically from within.
Given the overwhelmingly negative response from the community, what is the justification for leaving the bot in place? Is it because the moderators think they know better than everyone else?
Numerous comments contain thoughtfully researched, balanced and reasonable criticisms, and your reaction is to basically call them just a bunch of negative nellies, rather than to consider maybe whether they have a point.
If I made a bot that shared fake news in comments on every single news story, would you say that having the option to block that bot is sufficient? I can block anyone, yet you still ban people for breaking the rules here.
You’re getting way too defensive, and digging your heels in - criticism isn’t always bad faith.
They have a point but strict fake news it isnt. It is not an option to leave it without any second bias opinion. Its not banning anyone. If you dislike it and demand it to be shutdown for democracy. Then you arent allowing other opinions.
You’ve made a bot which shares the political opinions of one dude as a comment to every single news story on here. A pro-zionist, right-wing dude.
I’m willing to make a public API to share my media bias and fact-checking report, as well. Will you add my opinion to every news post automatically as well, please? It would save me a lot of trouble!
Why does the bot spend so much space asking for donations to mediabiasfactcheck.com and thanking them for an api? Especially when it’s one of the few areas not in a spoiler block so it’s always shown?
kbin.life
Active