this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
47 points (92.7% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

39 readers
83 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.

Rules

Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Disclaimer: The issue here is not completely related to the bot presence, but more about the justification used. People would probably be less annoyed if the mods stated "this is our decision, and it is final", rather than to try to use admins as an excuse.

As usual, for people looking for other world news communities

https://lemmy.world/comment/12825224

https://lemmy.world/comment/12834553

For other threads about the MBFC bot:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (21 children)

Probably more fitting for [email protected] as the mod didn't actually take any specific mod action. But other than that, from what I see it's either CLM, or coward mod?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (7 children)

Seems harsh tbh, if Jordan was the only mod then it would be his sole decision but afaik that's not the situation. There are six mods in that community and presumably they operate on a consensus basis with a decision like this. The bot was obviously implemented by the instance admin. So where's the lie exactly?

Also people can block that bot if they don't want to see it. Some people are just obsessed with it for some reason. It'd be interesting to know what percent of LW users have blocked it - that'd give a better idea of how unpopular it is or whether it's a vocal minority issue. Any stats on that @[email protected] ?

[–] MrKaplan 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

288 of local users that are also subscribed to [email protected] blocked the bot, which is about 1.2%.

when it comes to the topic of lying, it seems more like a misunderstanding from what i've heard after these comments were written.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I think that clarifies things for me. Clearly it's a vocal minority, who can simply block the bot.

[–] PugJesus 5 points 3 weeks ago

I don't block the bot because people sometimes respond to it with things that are worth interacting with. Yet I hate the bot. The bot is overwhelmingly downvoted (which people who block it could not do) in just about every instance it pops up.

[–] Maggoty 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't block the bot because it's misinformation that deserves to be downvoted. MBFCs idea of bias is clearly from an anarcho right wing point of view instead of objective, which is why they list mainstream, fact based news, at the same level as libertarian extremists and GOP campaign websites.

So yeah. The literal first thing I do in a comment section is downvote the bot.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree with you that some of their ratings are questionable. It seems an impossible task to find any authoritative source of fact checking that doesn't have some inherent biases of its own. I mean, a lot of folks on the left regard RT and Al Jazeera as high credibility news organisations, and folks on the right still trust Fox News. The situation is a bit insane.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 3 weeks ago

You have to go far left before RT is considered credible again. AJ's reputation is because they usually are unbiased in the American domestic section. They get as bad as RT the second it's international news though.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)