• JASN_DE@lemmy.world
    13·
    6 days ago

    The idea isn’t bad, but the data source is almost comically skewed, same as for the Lemmy bot.

  • Kichae@lemmy.caEnglish
    11·
    6 days ago

    What is the baseline for this thing that it’s labeling CNN “left”? It’s practically the dictionary definition of centre-right.

  • j4k3@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    6 days ago

    It has no value to me. Deciding the line in the sand is just as much of a power play as the onerous establishment. Calling the US Democrats Left is disingenuous. They are on the right by a considerable margin. The USA has no Left. So this is only pressing the establishment and validating it.

  • ByteMe@lemmy.worldOP
    4·
    6 days ago

    ###Addition

    Apparently the bot I showed isn’t the best one. I was more talking about the idea behind it instead of using the same bot. We can find alternatives. Recommendations are welcome

  • Cris@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    5 days ago

    If you want to potentially sidestep some of people’s frustrations you might consider just using the credibility rating and focusing on whether a group provides factual reporting, rather than left or right of center

    You can also create a user experience that more carefully manages expectations of the feature by having it be opt in, but presenting the option to users when it becomes available. That gives you the opportunity to give a short blurb acknowledging its imperfections and also highlighting its potential value

    As someone fairly to the left wing myself, the fact that lemmy is so left wing is both a blessing and a curse. I don’t see Nazis around, but being in an echo chamber isn’t great for your ability to engage with perspectives other than your own, and makes you succeptible to narratives that reinforce your existing views regardless of whether they’re accurate

    I’d love this feature, in spite of its flaws, but it does definitely have them. Its based on the US overton window, which will frustrate folks from other parts of the world who may already feel lemmy sometimes forgets the world beyond the US exists. And the US overton window is changing as a product of the trump administration which may warp mbfc results, which could honestly be really dangerous.

    Focussing on the factuality and credibility might help you sidestep those problems and make a feature people would find less frustrating, potentially even to the point that you could make it opt out.

    Generally I appreciate efforts to build healthier, less echo chambery discourse, thanks for the work you’re doing ❤️

  • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml
    3·
    6 days ago

    I think a community notes feature would be better. Because community notes target specific statements in the article/comment, whereas this just provides a vague and hard-to-interpret score.

  • voracitude@lemmy.world
    3·
    6 days ago

    Along with others in this thread, I don’t think this feature would foster a healthy community - it would foster an echo chamber. I would rather see an analysis of the language of the article pointing out any logical fallacies used, weasel words, etc. than a “left-o-meter”. I have my own one of those based on my actual beliefs, not what someone decides my beliefs have to be to fit into the blue box.

    • ByteMe@lemmy.worldOP
      2·
      6 days ago

      So it’s a meter based on how left it is? I guess I didn’t take a good look at it, I thought it was something like something that checks the credibility of the website.

      • voracitude@lemmy.world
        2·
        5 days ago

        I mean, it’s a little more than that, but only a little. There’s a literal meter in your screenshot of how left or right the source is. “Credibility rating” requires us to trust MediaBiasFactCheck’s credibility rating system, which I don’t know enough about at the moment and so default to not trusting it.

        That’s why I say calling out the problematic structures would be more helpful - people could see it for themselves, right there in the article text, and then maybe also identify then without help later. This would foster healthier discussion than an echo chamber where people ignore a source based on its biases.

        Of course some sources would be more note than content, but then some sources have argued in court they’re not really news.

  • shnizmuffin@lemmy.inbutts.lolEnglish
    2·
    6 days ago

    To answer your question in relation to Summit, or any Lemmy client in general:

    Implementing a feature like this interferes with user agency. I dislike the idea that my device would be sending my reading habits to a fact checking site. Since the implementation would most likely be domain agnostic, that website wouldn’t just know my political stance, it would also know my interests. I don’t need any more targeted advertising for Legos, sports paraphernalia, or enterprise server equipment.

    From a developer perspective, I bet that API costs money eventually. It’s a trap.