This bot was introduced because modding can be pretty tough work at times and we are all just volunteers with regular lives.
Then maybe it can be an internal thing only. Let people do their own critical thinking. I believe that if you’re on Lemmy, you can make informed decision.
Not to mention too expensive. The base ticket prices have skyrocketed over 1600% since 1996. In just the seven years between 2015 and 2022, attendees with household incomes of less than $100k dropped from around 56% to 40% and attendees with household incomes of $100k-$300k+ have risen from 43% to 59%. Over the years, it’s seemed like the crowd has been increasingly yuppie and increasingly white collar; these numbers appear to back that notion up. I remember seeing a video from a few years ago where Andrew Callaghan was talking about how he paid $10k for an RV spot and 2 tickets. He also complained that a lot of the people there seemed like “weekend-warrior-types”. I can only hope that price is with an insane scalper markup or a super deluxe VIP package or something. $10k is an unthinkable price for a weeklong camping trip in the desert, even a really cool one.
That, the heat as you mentioned (I found a chart that demonstrates rising averages and most in the comments are saying the reported highs are too low), and the floods last year I think have combined to scare a lot of the core demographic away. I dreamed of going to Burning Man for years, but I haven’t even thought of it in quite some time since I learned how prohibitively expensive it would be to go.
A ticket is $575! And that’s like, starting price. No wonder the average income of the attendees has gone up. They’re the only people who can afford to go. The rest of us down here spending our entire paychecks on rent and food can’t be wasting money on shit like this.
Law & Crime - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Law & Crime:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
It has been helpful and we would like to keep it around in one form or another.
Bull fucking shit. The majority of feedback has been negative. I can’t recall a single person arguing in its favor, but I can think of many, myself included, arguing against it. I hope you can find my report of one particular egregious example, because Lemmy doesn’t let me see a history of things I reported. I recall that MBFC rated a particular source poorly because they dared to use the word “genocide” to describe what’s going on in Gaza. Trusting one person, who clearly starts from an American point of view, and has a clearly biased view of world events, to be the arbiter of what is liberal or conservative, or factual or fictional, is actively harmful.
No community, neither reddit nor Lemmy nor any other, has suffered for lack of such a bot. I strongly recommend removing it. Non-credible sources, misinformation, and propaganda are already prohibited under rule 8. If a particular source is so objectionable, it should be blacklisted entirely. And what is and is not acceptable should be determined in concert with the community, not unilaterally.
Edit: And another thing! It’s obnoxious for bot comments to count toward the number of comments as shown in the post list. Nobody likes seeing it and thinking “I wonder what people are saying about this” and it’s just the damn bot again. But that’s really a shortcoming in Lemmy.
I will start by saying that I feel like we are trying to address the criticism in your first paragraph with these changes. That being said, thanks for your feedback. I particularly like the comment you shared under the “edit,” because I hadn’t seen that sentiment shared before (not saying nobody else had that issue, just appreciating you for contributing that and challenging me to think more about how we execute things).
That’s because it is almost exclusively tied up in his various corporate holdings that include everything from rocket builder SpaceX and brain chip company Neuralink to his latest startup, xAI.
None of these investments are easily fungible. Only Tesla is a publicly traded company. So the easiest solution at his fingertips is to liquidate a portion of his remaining 12% stake.
Thanks for the feedback. Can you elaborate a bit about the 50% of your screen thing? Is it the text itself, or is the issue that the app provides links at the bottom of the comment? I’m thinking of my experience on Voyager, where the links are summarized at the bottom of each comment, which does lead to a decent amount of screen being taken up. Would it be better if there weren’t any links?
yep I’m using Voyager on my iPhone. Maybe a super short summary without links. People could open the bot’s profile and look at the bot’s posts (not comments) if they want to dig deeper to understand a source.
Interesting, so you think the bot should make posts too? Like, a post for each source with a summary of relevant info? Just making sure I understand what you mean
There should be no competition at all between these two. And if it weren’t for the complete fucking idiots that live here, it would be a landslide victory for common sense.
A morally bankrupt 34 times over felon/sex offender vs a provenly educated and effective woman with a clean track record and a good history of being on the right side of issues….
I think this may become a “close to the brink” moments in American history that many people will look back upon and have a great deal to say about for a very long time to come.
I agree and feel like I’m taking the same crazy pills I was on back in 2015-16. Shouldn’t even be a game with odds worth tuning in for, it should be a landslide. I remember how angry I was at the non-voting suckers back then. This time around, if you don’t vote, you better have a doctor’s note–considering the road we could end up going down.
I’m frankly rather concerned about the idea of crowdsourcing or voting on “reliability”, because - let’s be honest here - Lemmy’s population can have highly skewed perspectives on what constitutes “accurate”, “unbiased”, or “reliable” reporting of events. I’m concerned that opening this to influence by users’ preconceived notions would result in a reinforced echo chamber, where only sources which already agree with their perspectives are listed as “accurate”. It’d effectively turning this into a bias bot rather than a bias fact checking bot.
Aggregating from a number of rigorous, widely-accepted, and outside sources would seem to be a more suitable solution, although I can’t comment on how much programming it would take to produce an aggregate result. Perhaps just briefly listing results from a number of fact checkers?
I second this. This community is better than most social media, but it’s still that, and social media popularity is pretty bottom of the barrel as a means of determining accuracy. Additionally, that’d just open it up to abuse from people trying to weight the votes with fake accounts, scripts, whatever.
Are you over it now? all that energy to make a costume and walk around in the scorching sun pretending you’re a hip edgelord in a pretend dystopian world? All that time and money to see a few wrinkly sun-baked tits? Were you hoping you’d get laid by a harem of desert nymphs? Don’t want to sit in traffic for 8 hours?
NPR - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for NPR:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Respondent must respond in writing to Petitioner’s Requests for Production by August 23, 2024, failing which the Court will order Respondent to appear at a hearing with its counsel and a managing officer of the company to explain its continued non-compliance with its discovery obligations,”
Don’t worry about the lawsuit too much, crazy pillow guy. Pay your bankruptcy attorneys well and follow their advice.
Please, move the bias and reliability outside of the first accordion/spoiler. This is the sole purpose the bot was meant to provide. If we can't see that at a glance, it's bad. I don't see how these few words are "too long" either. I feel like a lot of the space could be cleared by turning the "Search Ground News" accordion into another link in the footer.
While I personally don't see the point of the controversy, it wouldn't be too hard to manually enter Wikipedia's Perennial Sources list into the database that the bot references, especially with MediaWiki's watchlist RSS feed. This would almost certainly satisfy the community.
Open source the database and the bot. Combined with #2, this could also offer an API to query Wikipedia's RSP for everyone to use in the spirit of fedi and decentralization.
Yes. A certain amount of my complaint about MBFC bot is not that it's a bad idea per se, it's just that the database and categorizations are laughably bad. It puts Al Jazeera in the same factual classification as TASS. It lists MSNBC as factually questionable and then when you look at the actual list, a lot of them are MSNBC getting it right and MBFC getting it wrong. It might as well be retitled "The New York Times's Awful Neoliberal Idea of Reality Check Bot". (And not talking about the biases ranking -- if that one is skewed it is fine, but they claim things are not factual if they don't match the appropriate bias, and the bias is unapologetic center-right.)
You can't set yourself up to sit in judgement of sources that write dozens of articles every single day about unfolding world events where the "objectively right" perspective isn't always even obvious in hindsight, and then totally half-ass the job of getting your basic facts straight about the sources you're ranking, and expect people to take you seriously. I feel like mostly the Lemmy hivemind is leaps and bounds ahead of MBFC bot at determining which sources are worth listening to.
it wouldn't be too hard to manually enter Wikipedia's Perennial Sources list into the database that the bot references
FUCK FUCK FUCK YES
This is an actual up-to-date and very extensive list that people who care bother to keep up to date in detail (even making distinctions like "hey this source is ok for most topics but they are biased when talking about X, Y, Z"). This would immediately do away with like 50% of my complaint about MBFC bot.
For example, if we retain MBFC, the layout could look something like this:
Rolling Stone Bias: Left, Credibility: High, Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
MBFC report | bot support | Search topics on Ground.News
in which "Rolling Stone" is linked to the Wikipedia article.
With RSP, it could look something like this:
Rolling Stone is generally reliable on cultureThere is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council).
Rolling stone is generally unreliable on politics and society, 2011–presentAccording to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was that Rolling Stone was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be attributed. Moreover, medical or scientific claims should not be sourced to the publication.
RSP listing | bot support | Search topics on Ground.News
Both examples with everything necessary linked, of course
I’ve seen truly a marvelous amount of human beings who would vote against A just because they were fortunate to buy their first house without assistance, “so why should anyone else get help?” It’s a chronic pain how often “fuck you, I got mine” is tossed around in so many flavours.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.