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.

  • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    We do. Admins found dozens of downvote alts and nuked them at the same time. Seems folks aren’t content to just state their opinion and leave it at that, and instead they feel compelled to overwhelm the system to give the illusion of uniformity.

    • qevlarr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      These people were specifically trying to get the bot removed? Must have hit quite a nerve. I know it was biased in favor of Israel, but it must have been even worse. That bot sucks so bad people make mass sockpuppet accounts just to tell you they want it gone

        • qevlarr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          I was joking. Just like you can’t be seriously claiming there is no consensus that the bot sucks and that all the net downvotes for that bot are due to a small minority of sockpuppeteers?

          • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            2 months ago

            I didn’t claim there was no consensus, or that “all” the downvotes were sockpuppets. We have evidence that some of them were, which makes distilling the overall sentiment pretty difficult.

              • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                No, in this community. We were told that the admins found a vote manipulation ring in our threads. I don’t have admin level access, so I have no idea where they voted for what.

                  • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    Yeah, we were told they disrupted a downvote ring. I have no fucking idea where those accounts voted, except that we took vote totals with a grain of salt because we were in the dark. I’m frankly used to being bombarded with downvotes every time i comment in this community (edit: One person went out of their way to downvote each of my last 7 comments, for example.). So in my eyes, votes were (and continue to be) compromised, and we were informed about the ring while we were deliberating bot feedback. I tried to connect the dots with incomplete information because I’m not an admin. What else are you looking for here?

    • Five@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Props to the LW admin who uncovered and banned the vote manipulation ring. Its existence is troubling.

      I did a vote audit of the Soliciting Feedback from the Mods thread, and none of the sock accounts that were banned three days ago voted on the post or the most highly upvoted or downvoted comments. If you don’t believe me, I suggest asking an admin you trust to repeat the audit.

      The outrage about the bot seems extremely organic, and any sockpuppetting going on is small compared to the overwhelming number of legitimate accounts casting votes that are apparent from the logs. The uniformity of the consensus does not appear to be artificial at all.