I know MediaBiasFactCheck is not a be-all-end-all to truth/bias in media, but I find it to be a useful resource.

It makes sense to downvote it in posts that have great discussion – let the content rise up so people can have discussions with humans, sure.

But sometimes I see it getting downvoted when it’s the only comment there. Which does nothing, unless a reader has rules that automatically hide downvoted comments (but a reader would be able to expand the comment anyways…so really no difference).

What’s the point of downvoting? My only guess is that there’s people who are salty about something it said about some source they like. Yet I don’t see anyone providing an alternative to MediaBiasFactCheck…

      • Ellia Plissken
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I didn’t say I don’t like seeing them, I said I hate them. they represent nothing but spam as far as my emotional response

        • Pika@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I agree with op, It seems to be in your best interest to block them if they are effecting you that badly.

          • Ellia Plissken
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I feel like I really shouldn’t have to. if people genuinely wanted to use your bot, they would opt in

            • Pika@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              they would need to know about it is my only issue with that. It’s better to know and opt out, that way you know that it exists. Otherwise there was resources that nobody would know existed otherwise. A users personal opinion shouldn’t impact other users, and forcing bots to be opt in would impact the people who would want to use them just are unaware they exist.

              No other major platform does bots as opt in, and that’s generally the reason for it

              • Ellia Plissken
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                lol so people’s personal opinions should only affect others so long as the effect is one you agree with? just make it one option for all bots. right when you sign up: do you want to see bots? check yes or no.

                this isn’t supposed to be like other major platforms. most sites are concerned with driving engagement and retention, and user-made bots is a really cheap and lazy way to do that.

                • Pika@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  No it would be stupid to think that, however if there is an argument between two ideologies, the side that gives the most Freedom should be the side that’s represented I would have thought the fediverse of all places would agree with that principle.

                  Secondly that option already exists on at least the three instances I’ve signed up. I figured it was a universal setting, Whether that option actually works or not I’m not sure because I’ve never actually checked it because I don’t mind Bots if there’s one that’s annoying I just block it.

                  As for your last part, I wouldn’t agree that Bots are a cheap way to drive engagement, most Developers won’t make a bot with the expectation of bringing more users to the platform or drive engagement, they make a bot to fill a gap in utility that the platform is not currently giving, Beit entertainment, moderation, informational. The only platform that I can think actively creates Bots with the intention of increasing monetary value and engagement would be Discord and even then that’s more of a stretch because it’s more Discord forcing the monetary features on the Developers

                  • Ellia Plissken
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    you’re acting like I’m the person who made the argument. that entire first paragraph is an argument against what you said the first time.

                    I suggested a toggle feature, and you said they already exist and you don’t have a problem with them. so what’s left?