They're clearly not.

[Breaking Points]

Let me guess: This is a YouTube channel with a remarkably high level of polish, which came more or less from nowhere, which is aimed squarely at a left-wing audience, where a substantial number of their videos carry the message that you shouldn't vote for the Democrats.

Am I right? Or no?

Claude.ai is quite a bit superior to GPT in my experience. That one, I pay for, and it seems like it's worth it.

Sounds good. If you redid the import, I think you’ll want to make some manual fixes to the .json. Off the top of my head, I think you just need to add bbc.co.uk and aljazeera.com to the URL lists for those sources.

Apology accepted. Have a good one.

https://ponder.cat/comment/592277

https://ponder.cat/comment/589276

I already sent it. It's here:

https://ponder.cat/wp/wp-sources.zip

Edit: You don't need to do the import initially, since there's already a sources file with some small modifications. The import is the only complicated part. Use categorize.py to categorize a source, or lookup.py to run a quick command-line test.

On a different topic: It sounds like jordanlund is saying that if he tried to remove the MBFC bot from the politics sub, he might be removed as a moderator, and replaced with someone else, and the bot would come back.

https://lemmy.world/comment/12825768

Is that true? Is the admin team mandating the use of this bot, and if so, why?

Here you go:

https://ponder.cat/wp/wp-sources.zip

It's in python, suitable for sticking directly into the bot if the bot is in python. There are docs. It's a first cut. How did you envision this working? I can make a real API, if for some reason that makes things easier, but it's not immediately obvious how it would get integrated into things.

Running it on the last 50 articles posted to /c/politics, we see:

• https://lemmy.world/post/20739836: Source is unreliable since ownership change
• https://lemmy.world/post/20736298: Source is unreliable for political topics since 2011
• https://lemmy.world/post/20724155: Reliability consensus is mixed
• https://lemmy.world/post/20723675: Source is unreliable
• https://lemmy.world/post/20722912: Source is unreliable
• https://lemmy.world/post/20722910: Reliability consensus is mixed
• https://lemmy.world/post/20716118: Reliability consensus is mixed
• https://slrpnk.net/post/14127964: Reliability consensus is mixed

It's more complex to use this than MBFC, because there's a lot more depth to the rankings, and sometimes human judgement is needed to assign scores. There's a category "needinfo," meaning it's necessary to know what topic is being discussed or when an article was written, because of an ownership change or similar factor. I've applied that judgement above. That, to me, is a good thing. It means the bot is grounded in something, and not just blithely spitting out arbitrary scores without bothering to ground them in any reality.

In practice, I think it would be realistic to assign a single reliability ranking to most of the "needinfo" sources. You can manually edit the .json data to do so. Almost all of the posts are going to fit into one of Wikipedia's categorizations or another. Newsweek is unreliable, The Guardian is reliable, and so on.

I think most of the mixed-consensus sources can be used without a second thought. Mostly, the questions about them boil down to open partisanship of the source, which for a political community is perfectly fine as long as they're trustable factually.

If you want me to boil this down further, so that it gives a single "yes" or "no" score to each source, I can do that and probably keep almost all of the accuracy of the rankings, now that I've looked at it for a little while.

When you talk about "adding" this to the bot, are you proposing to still have MBFC be the main source, with this as a footnote? A lot of the criticism of the bot is on the grounds that MBFC is a very bad source for judging reliability, so I would question the idea of keeping it on as the primary source.

!rcv@ponder.cat

Any third party that's telling you to vote for them under FPTP, but isn't heavily promoting RCV to fix the system, isn't trying to win. They're trying to spoil the FPTP election.

RCV is already law in a surprisingly large number of places. It may change the majority in the house in this upcoming election, because the difference in vote-counting within the two states that use it for US congressional elections might be enough to change the razor-thin outcome.

RCV is on the ballot, in one form or another, in 7 states and DC this year. Go vote. You might be able to fix the system, and move toward the future that all the people in this thread who are being vocal about Jill Stein say that they want. Remember back when marijuana was illegal? That changed. This can change too, and it would be glorious, for a lot of important goals that a lot of people claiming to support Jill Stein claim they're supportive of. It would be practical and realistic. It would work.

Anyone in this thread who is saying Jill Stein is extremely important, but haven't been saying anything about ranked choice voting or changing the voting system to make third parties realistic: Why? What's your goal, why did you make that decision about your priorities?

The answer is obvious, of course. But it's fun to ask.

@anticolonialist@lemmy.world, why?

I'll add more @s as more people pipe up. They always do.

Register and vote, for RCV as well as for Harris. We have 25 more days.

https://www.vote.org/

The network said this week it would encourage the candidates to fact-check each other, but it never ruled out the notion that moderators would fact-check the candidates.

It’s a pleasure to see the only party that everyone respects worldwide, the master negotiators who fixed the Iran nuclear deal, in action.