[META] MBFC bot

JonsJava@lemmy.worldmod to News@lemmy.world – 0 points –

The news mod team has asked to no longer be a part of the project until we have a composite tool that polls multiple sources for a more balanced view.

It will take a few hours, but FOR NOW there won't be a bot giving reviews of the source.

The goal was simple: make it easier to show biased sources. This was to give you and the mods a better view of what we were looking at.

The mod team is in agreement: one source of truth isn't enough. We are working on a tool to give a composite score, from multiple sources, all open source.

94

You are viewing a single comment

Perhaps it is true that you've considered all feedback, but I'm sure you can acknowledge my point that comments from mods suggesting that the most downvoted comments are all opposition to the bot, or that votes on upvoted comments ought to be ignored because of vote manipulation might cause those who are opposed to feel as though their opinions have been dismissed.

Regardless, while I look forward to your response should you wish to offer one, I've had my say and I feel as though I've been heard.

or that votes on upvoted comments ought to be ignored because of vote manipulation

No one on the mod team said that. If you're going to appeal that we be honest in our engagement, the least you can do is be honest in yours.

That was my good faith attempt to paraphrase this comment:

sorting by "top" is equally invalid

I don't think that's a dishonest or disingenuous interpretation.

Yes, cutting a snippet out of a sentence with broader context is a classic form of bad faith argumentation:

if we’re not allowed to point to votes as a source of valid information, then sorting by “top” is equally invalid.

The "if" conditional is pretty fundamental in that sentence. To cut it out and then paraphrase it to mean something it doesn't is one of the oldest tricks in the book.