Everything’s been working smoothly, with nothing to report about the moderation bot. The community has been quiet but productive, which was precisely the goal, and the bot working smoothly with no issues. However, something almost went wrong in a particular entertaining fashion which I thought I would share.

The algorithm for classifying troll users doesn’t have any polarity. It only knows which users are opposed to which other users. 50% of the time, it’ll get its whole ranking system backwards, so the troll users are the normal ones, and everyone else gets negative rank, because the math works just as well under that ranking regime. Generally this isn’t a problem, because there’s a step:

        # Flip the sign if we arrived at a majority-negative ranking, which can happen
        if -min_val > max_val:
            rank[1:] *= -1

The most popular user is always more popular than the least popular troll is unpopular, by quite a big margin, so that works fine.

However. Things have changed. MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world is so unpopular that it’s almost (1% margin) more unpopular than the highest-rank user is popular. If that had happened, the whole polarity would have flipped, every user would have been banned, all the trolls would have been unbanned. Mass hysteria. I only happened to notice it before it happened and stop the bot. It’s on track to be the least popular user on Lemmy, with about 5 times lower rank than some of the most notorious trolls.

Have fun with this information. I started checking the median rank of all users, instead. Thanks MediaBiasFactChecker.

  • Furbland@lemmy.world
    5·
    1 day ago

    Ever think about how this is the same admin that banned a ton of people super immaturely that one time? And (this isn’t necessarily bad, but it’s a bit of a red flag combined with the other stuff) their PFP is AI generated?

    • Furbland@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 day ago

      Since my home instance is lemmy.world I can’t wait to get my account murdered in a matter of minutes

  • Five@slrpnk.netEnglish
    4·
    2 months ago

    As an outspoken critic of the MediaBiasFactChecker bot and the place of authority it gives to the deeply flawed site MediaBiasFactCheck.com, I find this hilarious.

    MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world is so unpopular that it’s almost (1% margin) more unpopular than the highest-rank user is popular.

    Thank you for sharing this statistic! I’m excited that my downvotes may have contributed to this record-breaking achievement.

  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
    3·
    2 months ago

    Crisis averted 😅

    But yeah, the mbfc bot is annoying, I have blocked it as well.

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      …Why didn’t I think of doing this until now? 🤦‍♂️

      Bout to 💥 that block button so damn hard!

  • cerement@slrpnk.net
    2·
    2 months ago

    the bot that rates Voice of America as “Least Biased” and “High Factual Reporting” …

  • DannyBoy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    The idea of every normal user banned and only trolls remain is kinda hilarious though. I could only imagine the meaningful conversations that would come out of that.

    • auk@slrpnk.netOPM
      3·
      2 months ago

      I almost let it happen, so I could post this after the fact. It would have been much funnier, but I wasn’t sure about the implications of banning thousands of users one by one, probably including myself and the bot.

      They’re still neck and neck, with the bot still just barely behind the highest-ranked user.

      Edit: I swear to God, this just happened as I was typing this message: MediaBiasFactChecker is now lower-ranked than the negative of the highest user. We’ve crossed the threshold.

    • Five@slrpnk.netEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      For a deep dive, you can read the original post when it was unveiled for !politics@lemmy.world last month, or the feedback post when they expanded it to !news and !world despite its terrible reception.

      I’ve made a number of comments about the flaws in their approach. If there’s interest I might make a link collection. TLDR: MBFC is a joke, nobody in the fact-checking world or experience managing source credibility takes it seriously. The author/editor of the site has a right-wing, anti-Palestinian, and anti-LGBTQ+ bias.

      • KombatWombat@lemmy.world
        1·
        15 hours ago

        Why do you think it’s a joke? Just looking at the wikipedia article on it, it sounds like it is widely used and correlates strongly with other independent fact checkers. Also, while it was founded by one person, it uses a network of independent reviewers.

        Most of the people criticizing it seem to not like how their source is rated, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

    • 9point6@lemmy.world
      3·
      2 months ago

      The message formatting looks shit on a lot of lemmy clients

      The source of the data is also pretty biased in general and does objectively malicious ratings like drawing a factuality equivalency between fairly trustworthy news outlets like The Guardian and the fucking far right conspiracy outlet, Breitbart.

      The owner of the bot ignores this feedback and continues to spam every thread with it.

      I’ve blocked it

      • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.netEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        i wish it had a different name. i think “fact checker” gives the impression that its media bias analysis is objective truth when in fact the analysis itself is biased

    • lemmyng@lemmy.caEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago
      • A lot of people get annoyed that it shows as a comment, sometimes the only comment on a post.
      • Because there’s no way to hide the comment, people downvote it so it’s at the bottom of the comment list.
    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      11·
      2 months ago

      The guy who maintains the database it pulls from has questionable bias himself, it’s not unbiased itself like it implies.

      But supposedly the guy’s bias leans left sooo I personally have been fairly neutral towards it