I did this while it was a pilot program. Extremely easy and the fastest processing I’ve ever had on a passport renewal.

Ah, that makes sense. Didn’t see it because it was a crosspost and my client (Voyager) left that out of the description.

The source for the bot’s info is Media Bias Fact Check, which is separate from Ground News. The admins added the Ground News link because users wanted additional sources and mentioned that one I believe.

I think the bigger question is why it bothered with Internet Archive, since that wasn’t mentioned in the original post, or did I miss something?

“Please do not link to this draft as it is unfinished and the URL will change upon publication.”

This is still in draft, unfinished, and they specifically asked people not link to it yet. Probably better to wait until the report is final

Odd then that they’re using Rule 5 bans on people like me who never posted to their community

Ah, this explains it! Saw I was banned from a community that I’d never posted in and evidently one of the mods is a wanker. Mystery solved :)

“…insinuating that only bots are down voting…” (emphasis added)

No, they’re not saying “only”, they’re saying there may be bots doing some of the downvoting. E.g. probably based off IPs, client strings, or something else.

That’s not what he was saying.

Yeah, go see his response in another part of this thread to my request to provide some constructive feedback if you haven’t already. It was all just the same bad faith misinformation about the bot and the data source. I even linked the sources for how it actually worked and no reply, just downvotes.

Currently the bot’s media ratings come from just some guy, who is unaccountable and has an obvious rightwing bias.

Wow! Talk about misinformation!!! https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/

Or maybe you think they were bought and paid for by some nefarious source? Nope…

Media Bias/Fact Check funding comes from reader donations, third-party advertising, and membership subscriptions. We use third-party advertising to prevent influence and bias, as we do not select the ads you see displayed. Ads are generated based on your search history, cookies, and the current web page content you are viewing. We receive $0 from corporations, foundations, organizations, wealthy investors, or advocacy groups. See details on funding.

…I would suggest making the ratings instead come from an open sourced and crowdsourced system. A system where everyone could give their inputs and have transparency, similar to an upvote/downvote system.

Such a system would take many hours to design and maintain, it is not something I personally am willing to contribute, nor would I ask it of any volunteers.

Thank you for at least providing an iota of something constructive. It’s an interesting idea, and there is academic research that shows it might be possible. But the problem is then in a world already filled with state- and corpo-sponsored organized misinformation campaigns, how does any crowdsourced solution avoid capture and infiltration from the very sources of misinformation it should be assessing? Look at the feature on Twitter and how often that is abused. Then you’d need a fact checker for your fact checker.

“universally destructive to understanding”

So what you’re saying is that no one derives any use from the bot? Wow, with that kind of omniscience, I’d expect we could just ask you to judge every news source. Win-win for everyone I suppose if you’re up for it.

Now “generally destructive” would probably be better wording for us mere mortals, but stills seems to be a wildly generalized statement. Or maybe “inadequately precise” would be more realistic, but then that really takes the wind out of the sails to ban it, doesn’t?

Because this is the first thing I think I’ve seen you post and blocking everything you disagree with seems sort of stupid?

I think the bot has issues, but I hardly agree that it’s posting misinformation. Incomplete? Imperfect? You bet. But that’s not “misinformation” in any commonly understood meaning. I think the intent of providing additional context on information sources is laudable.

As someone with such a distaste for misinformation, how would you suggest fixing it? That’s a much more useful discussion than “BAN THE THING I PERSONALLY AND SUBJECTIVELY THINK IS BAD!!!” You obviously think misinformation is a problem, so why not suggest a solution?

Just block it if you don’t like it?

Username …doesn’t check out

I’ve had FIOS for more than a decade. Service has been pretty much close to flawless. YMMV

For various reasons, I’ve gone to political rallies for a good portion of my life. They can be really fun or incredibly boring. There’s a sense of community you get at a concert or church service, and at the good ones, it can be quite a charge to be sharing the moment with others. At the bad ones, it can seem shrill or too amped or on the opposite side being dull as dishwater.

tl;dr - basically like a school pep rally for adults, but without the drawback of being required

Or people without any media literacy are more likely to vote for conservatives…

Not really sure your premise holds. I mean, sure a bunch of tradwives and their husbands might get upset when a woman declines to have kids, but in general I don’t think most people care. I’ve got kids but most of my friends don’t and I can’t imagine anyone caring one way or another.

“it says in KAOS he’s only in one episode”

Define “it” in this phrase, because he’s in every episode?