We’ve had some trouble recently with posts from aggregator links like Google Amp, MSN, and Yahoo.
We’re now requiring links go to the OG source, and not a conduit.
In an example like this, it can give the wrong attribution to the MBFC bot, and can give a more or less reliable rating than the original source, but it also makes it harder to run down duplicates.
So anything not linked to the original source, but is stuck on Google Amp, MSN, Yahoo, etc. will be removed.
As someone who raised this issue, I want to thank the mods for addressing this. The MBFC bot aside, I think this will also cut down on dupes, as I’ve seen numerous times where an article was shared twice- once from the OG source and then another version from MSN or Yahoo news.
And for users who want to check the source of something, it does make it easier to fact check for yourself.
Who knows, it might even slow down certain profligate posters who obviously just take every link in a news aggregator and share it (and then brush off every comment with a “I didn’t write the article…) 😉
Accounts have been spamming MSN, amp and yahoo links?
Yes, mostly MSN and Yahoo
And yet the mod log is empty of that. If was spamming there’d be more than 1 in the last week.
I said they were profligate in their posting, not spamming. Say, for instance, users with 1.6k posts in around 60 days. Personally I feel they have been spamming, but the mods think differently and that’s fine. However they are pretty universally regarded as posting and commenting to an unhealthy degree.
Are you saying it ain’t illegal if the cops don’t catch you doing it? 🤣
People usually link to sites like MSN and Yahoo because the content is no longer locked behind a paywall. 🤷♂️
Many of the articles I’ve seen are not in fact behind a paywall but obviously YMMV
What seems reasonable to me is, if someone is willing to make the optional effort to do so, to link the original paywalled source as the primary link, but then either add the paywall-free MSN/Yahoo/AMP link at the bottom of the description or in a comment. It looks like this would still be in line with the updated rules, but would prevent duplicate posts (one posts only the paywall free version and one posts only with a paywall link).
There’s much better ways to do archive links that deal with paywalls, e.g. archive.is and others. News aggregators should not be relied on for archival links, as a link that works today may not work a year from now, as corporate agreements/ownership change
Ah, that’s a good point that I hadn’t considered. You’re right.
Of course there might be that rare exception - where the archivers can’t get past the paywall on the original site, but it’s available from MSN or something.
Even so, it seems like as a general rule, prefer to use an archiver, and fall back to a news aggregator only as a last resort, and then archive the news aggregator’s page so it’s retained even if the aggregator drops the article later on. Am I on the right track here?
(Current example, https://archive.ph/nugTi did not succeed in getting https://theintercept.com/2024/10/09/white-house-oct-7-israel-war-gaza/ - in the past I’ve seen this overcome by archiving from the Google Cache’d version or from a version archived in the Wayback machine, but Google Cache was killed by Google and archive.org is currently down still over this holiday weekend.)
BTW, for that site and others with more of a nagwall rather than a paywall, viewing it in reader view takes care of the popup (and many Lemmy clients can be set to default to reader view for links)
Thanks, the tip about the reader view solves the original issue (on reading nagwalled articles). I run my own pyfedi/piefed instance so I’d be surprised if I could use a lemmy client, but I’ll keep it in mind.
If only there was a way I could feed my reader view into archive.is (which would solve the other issue, that of preserving the article in case the original ever goes down).
Can we please just get rid of the propaganda bot instead? It’s bad at what it claims to do, and does nothing to stem the flow of disinformation here.
If you really want users to think about their sources, then you should have a dedicated source discussion thread for every post.
The bot actively and objectively makes Lemmy a worse platform. I’ve personally stopped recommending Lemmy to friends, and the bot is the top reason. (The other reason is the power users who astroturf the various news communities with their pet issues. Hopefully that will change after the election.)
So the reason you don’t recommend Lemmy is a bot that you can block if you don’t like it? That seems a little much, IMO
Yes.
I guess I’m confused. Why don’t you just block it? What offends you about it so much that you not only don’t want to see it, you don’t want anyone else to see it?
You know how I can tell someone is full of bullshit. When they start claiming they’re talking for everyone. From the comment you linked to:
show callous indifference to how everyone in the community sees it…
That’s patently untrue and weakens every argument you have about it. The funniest thing to me about all the anti-botters is that you all never bother to come up with a suggestion on how to improve it or change how it’s implemented. It’s this knee jerk emotional reaction that you then spend paragraphs rationalizing to each other.
Within the constraints we have with Lemmy as the platform it is, the options for mods are limited for now. How do you propose addressing the issues that the bot attempts to solve if you get rid of the bot?
Scintillating conversationalist! Great, so you’re one of the only folks I’ve seen step forward with help. Still doesn’t change the fact you claim to be speaking for “everyone” when you, in fact, do not speak for everyone.
Fuck me for caring about this platform, right?
So you seem really angry about something and I was literally just asking for clarification on why you felt the way you did. Sorry for taking an interest
For a second I thought you were talking about our favorite high-traffic poster, who is now queue flooding 15 articles a day.
Which one? There’s a bunch of them. Although I suspect that a lot of them are the same people using alt accounts.
A dedicated source discussion thread for every post would have to be automated and, ideally, link to a source that checks the bias and credibility of the source…
You just suggested what we’re already doing…
People can link their own sources. There could be a dedicated community to keep track. Literally anything is better than the half-assed bot telling everyone what to think.
Your opinion is bad.
Please provide an OG source for this.
Stop it, I really mean it!
Anybody want a peanut?
Rest well, and dream of large women.
While you’re at it, why don’t you give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice on it?
Especially useful on mobile. Simply paste/copy to fix amp links. Free, no ads.
e: formatting
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
