this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
350 points (89.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35904 readers
1210 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I know MediaBiasFactCheck is not a be-all-end-all to truth/bias in media, but I find it to be a useful resource.

It makes sense to downvote it in posts that have great discussion -- let the content rise up so people can have discussions with humans, sure.

But sometimes I see it getting downvoted when it's the only comment there. Which does nothing, unless a reader has rules that automatically hide downvoted comments (but a reader would be able to expand the comment anyways...so really no difference).

What's the point of downvoting? My only guess is that there's people who are salty about something it said about some source they like. Yet I don't see anyone providing an alternative to MediaBiasFactCheck...

(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] anguo@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I've downvoted it on articles where political bias is completely irrelevant.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I downvote every bot post I come across

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 3 months ago

It hides the most important stuff behind accordions and there are some sources for bias & reliability checking the community favors.

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago

There’s a lot of criticism of the bot implementation and mbfc in this thread but no criticism of why it was implemented.

The whole point of mbfc bot was to reduce the mod workload. By (hopefully) exchanging a bunch of posts examining the source of a link, mods hoped to have fewer fights to wade into.

A person could say that’s just what happens when you run an English language community during American election years, and there’s a degree of truth to that.

I think that the mods of the world communities the bot is in want some way to restrict speech along the lines of their own combination of political axes and see the bot as a way to do so under the guise of “just checking facts”.

I am not invoking free speech as a negative criticism here.

What would be possibly more healthy for the mods is to develop a political line and clearly say “if you speak outside this system of understanding you may be modded upon”.

[–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

For one, it bases it's bias assessments on American politics. The UK is less right-wing than the US but when this bot comes along it calls a source which we might call centrist, "left".

In a way, it's like an attempt to shift the overton window for other countries closer to the US, and that's not a good thing.

Of course, don't expect this to be addressed by @Rooki@lemmy.world.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Toes@ani.social 3 points 3 months ago

I really like it, but I can see people being upset if it doesn't align with their world view.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›