Circumcision is not gender-affirming care? “Oh, that’s different!”
jfc what kind of sacrifice do I need to make to what ancient diety to get him to step down?
I think we gotta have a conversation as a society about when the hand over the reins to the kids. I’m in my 30’s and glad life expectancy peaked cause seeing the gerontocracy from this end is horrifying.
I’ll accept Cthulhu. I always assumed an ancient being as old as the universe would destroy my puny existence
Sacrifice your country to Trump
Glad you posted this, it reminded me to update my Lemmy content filter! Up to now, I’ve just filtered out any headline including the word “slam, slammed, or slams.” Because those headlines are garbage. Now I’ve remembered I need to add the word “blast, blasted, and blasts,” because those are garbage too. Thanks!!
Cool. Wait until you realize some of those garbage headlines represent great articles though. Obviously not all of them, but it seems very weird to filter out so many words
Nah op is in the right here, it’s a really reliable indicator of ragebait, tabloid and/or amateur journalism
Nahh, an article can present a point of view we deem to be “correct” while still engaging in clickbait and sensationalism. I’m not interested in clickbait or sensationalism, so I find that my filtering methods do a pretty good job of getting rid of most of the trash.
https://youtu.be/kkfX1mpsMKk?si=9GgAN_xD7iVlgFkz
Please remember we knew all of this about Donald Drumph in 2016, and we allowed The Electoral College to vote him in. This was before he was elected and John Oliver was pleading for us to vote this guy out.
Biden isn’t who anyone wants, but if you want to stop having to decide between a shit sandwich and a steaming pile of shit, you have to be constantly vigilant.
Engage on a local level so that RCV or anything other than FPTP voting is enacted. Do the same at your state level. Literally 80+% of the voters would support RCV if it is presented with no political bias, some will recommend some addendums, but will still be fine with the overall idea.
The federal level will follow because they have to or we start exercising our second amendment rights.
Make the government scared of the people, to the point that we can disband the slaver gangs called police.
#DonaldDrumph, #BabyHands, #LetsPissOffTheEstablishmentToSeeWhatTheyDo
Bleep Bloop. When reading this source, please be critical. This source has been rated by MFBR as being of lower credibility. Report: Source detected: lgbtqnation.com, BSFR ratubg: bias: left, credibility: medium-credibility, questionable: []. Thank you for being a part of !news :D (this action was taken automatically)
Here’s some feedback
- Make it more clear this is a bot in beta mode
- Better formatting.
- A small blurb of what the bot does. No acronyms
- Instead of putting a warning, have it fire on all sources. Use some sort of color coding to differentiate quality in the better formatted message.
Yea, those are all points that I should have included in the bot, my apologies. I will propably make a public post for people to discuss and help me to refine the bot. Thank you for the feedback.
Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) rates them “mostly factual” with left bias.
You’re both right. Mostly factual, with medium credibility.
The current parameters for the bot to send this message are that the source is considered to have medium or low credibility or that the source’s reporting is considered low or very low. The message itself doesn’t mean that the post will face any moderation action, it’s just a notification to the community. I’m still working on this functionality, so any feedback is welcome (: (I am aware of the typos, fixing them right now)
I’m confused now. The commenter says they have high factuality but the bot says they have medium credibility.
What does that mean? Isn’t credibility very tightly linked to factuality?
For more information you can look here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lgbtq-nation/
I think it’s a pretty clever idea for a bot here, if that’s any encouragement. :)
