New rule on link Aggregators/Forwarders:
(lemmy.world)
Especially useful on mobile. Simply paste/copy to fix amp links. Free, no ads.
e: formatting
94
We've had some trouble recently with posts from aggregator links like Google Amp, MSN, and Yahoo.
We're now requiring links go to the OG source, and not a conduit.
In an example like this, it can give the wrong attribution to the MBFC bot, and can give a more or less reliable rating than the original source, but it also makes it harder to run down duplicates.
So anything not linked to the original source, but is stuck on Google Amp, MSN, Yahoo, etc. will be removed.
Great tip! Thank you!
As someone who raised this issue, I want to thank the mods for addressing this. The MBFC bot aside, I think this will also cut down on dupes, as I’ve seen numerous times where an article was shared twice- once from the OG source and then another version from MSN or Yahoo news.
And for users who want to check the source of something, it does make it easier to fact check for yourself.
Who knows, it might even slow down certain profligate posters who obviously just take every link in a news aggregator and share it (and then brush off every comment with a “I didn’t write the article…) 😉
People usually link to sites like MSN and Yahoo because the content is no longer locked behind a paywall. 🤷♂️
Many of the articles I’ve seen are not in fact behind a paywall but obviously YMMV
Accounts have been spamming MSN, amp and yahoo links?
Yes, mostly MSN and Yahoo
And yet the mod log is empty of that. If was spamming there'd be more than 1 in the last week.
I said they were profligate in their posting, not spamming. Say, for instance, users with 1.6k posts in around 60 days. Personally I feel they have been spamming, but the mods think differently and that’s fine. However they are pretty universally regarded as posting and commenting to an unhealthy degree.
Are you saying it ain't illegal if the cops don't catch you doing it? 🤣
Can we please just get rid of the propaganda bot instead? It's bad at what it claims to do, and does nothing to stem the flow of disinformation here.
If you really want users to think about their sources, then you should have a dedicated source discussion thread for every post.
The bot actively and objectively makes Lemmy a worse platform. I've personally stopped recommending Lemmy to friends, and the bot is the top reason. (The other reason is the power users who astroturf the various news communities with their pet issues. Hopefully that will change after the election.)
For a second I thought you were talking about our favorite high-traffic poster, who is now queue flooding 15 articles a day.
Which one is the favorite? I'm starting to see more and more voices that aren't quite as mainstream (yet) as Lemmy would like, so I think the diversity of thought and opinion is awesome.
Which one? There's a bunch of them. Although I suspect that a lot of them are the same people using alt accounts.
So the reason you don’t recommend Lemmy is a bot that you can block if you don’t like it? That seems a little much, IMO
Yes.
I guess I’m confused. Why don’t you just block it? What offends you about it so much that you not only don’t want to see it, you don’t want anyone else to see it?
You know how I can tell someone is full of bullshit. When they start claiming they’re talking for everyone. From the comment you linked to:
show callous indifference to how everyone in the community sees it…
That’s patently untrue and weakens every argument you have about it. The funniest thing to me about all the anti-botters is that you all never bother to come up with a suggestion on how to improve it or change how it’s implemented. It’s this knee jerk emotional reaction that you then spend paragraphs rationalizing to each other.
Within the constraints we have with Lemmy as the platform it is, the options for mods are limited for now. How do you propose addressing the issues that the bot attempts to solve if you get rid of the bot?
Scintillating conversationalist! Great, so you’re one of the only folks I’ve seen step forward with help. Still doesn’t change the fact you claim to be speaking for “everyone” when you, in fact, do not speak for everyone.
Apology accepted. Have a good one.
Fuck me for caring about this platform, right?
So you seem really angry about something and I was literally just asking for clarification on why you felt the way you did. Sorry for taking an interest
A dedicated source discussion thread for every post would have to be automated and, ideally, link to a source that checks the bias and credibility of the source...
You just suggested what we're already doing...
People can link their own sources. There could be a dedicated community to keep track. Literally anything is better than the half-assed bot telling everyone what to think.
Please provide an OG source for this.
Stop it, I really mean it!
Anybody want a peanut?
Rest well, and dream of large women.
While you're at it, why don't you give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice on it?
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
94 points (92.7% liked)
politics
19026 readers
2749 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS