Ok, but you did claim that you had evidence that some of the downvotes were sockpuppets, contrary to the analysis discussed in this comment.

The rest of the sentence doesn't change the meaning, nor the point I was making?

So based on your other comment, the "evidence" you're referring to here is merely that vote manipulation had occurred in some other community?

That was my good faith attempt to paraphrase this comment:

sorting by "top" is equally invalid

I don't think that's a dishonest or disingenuous interpretation.

I don't think it's guilt from 80 years ago, I think most countries would do the same.

Tomorrow: a new mothership!

My comment is a reference to the well known axiom that you can not provide evidence for a negative. It's not possible to provide evidence that AGI is not possible, we must content ourselves with the lack of evidence that it is possible.

Perhaps it is true that you've considered all feedback, but I'm sure you can acknowledge my point that comments from mods suggesting that the most downvoted comments are all opposition to the bot, or that votes on upvoted comments ought to be ignored because of vote manipulation might cause those who are opposed to feel as though their opinions have been dismissed.

Regardless, while I look forward to your response should you wish to offer one, I've had my say and I feel as though I've been heard.

A bot may be coded by a mod, under your control, and open source. They are not mutually exclusive characteristics.

What I’m making isn’t a bot, but an API, but everybody got pissed I wanted ANYTHING that would help detect false news.

That's not really clear from your opening post. I don't mean that to be critical, just saying the opening post sounded very much like the pending release of bot v2.

I don’t think that the mod team has ever said that there is not some valid criticism.

That's not what an inability to engage with feedback means though, it means genuinely listening to the perspectives of others even in cases where it's inconvenient, unexpected, unpleasant, and yes in some cases presented in an offensive manner.

That doesn't mean you need to just allow people to spew hatred and vitriol at you - of course you can call out that kind of behavior where you see it. It's probably fair to say that some Lemmy users would struggle to express themselves on topics they feel strongly about without being offensive.

That said, I suspect that a lot of the vitriol you've encountered on this topic has in some part been provoked by the mods collective reluctance to actually acknowledge the many shortcomings of this bot or any potential reincarnation.

I mean the following in as congenial a manner as possible, but the comment of yours I replied to earlier (regarding the most downvoted comments in the other thread) seemed quite dismissive. You may not have intended it as such, nevertheless that's how it appears. Engaging with that feedback would mean considering the actual content of those comments with a charitable attitude? JonsJava similarly quoting vote counts for the other post as a means to disregard concerns.

Again, in as congenial and constructive a manner as possible, Blackbeard has revealed that there has been some vote manipulation which I acknowledge has frustrated things from your perspective, but again the narrative that "there is a vocal minority opposing the bot and inflating comments in opposition to the bot" is dismissive of the very real issues extant.

I'm not alone in feeling exasperated by the cycle of request feedback > dismiss feedback.

We're here in a thread discussing the next incarnation of the bot which presumably will be coded by a mod and under your control?

That's not really how copyright law works though.

It's a civil issue which means the aggrieved party needs to file a suit.

It's obviously just easier and cheaper for trumps team to do it this way. There's no back and forth asking for permission (that would be declined anyway). They just do it, then pay a few grand to settle later

“The fact is that a private photographer was permitted on the premises and for whatever reason an unnamed individual, clearly suffering from a mental health episode, decided to physically block members of President Trump’s team during a very solemn ceremony,” Cheung said.

These guys are shameless.

Even if she didn't press charges she would still be in danger.

Not really.

Both mastodon.social and piefed.social are domain names that point to instances.

The last part of the domain name after the dot like .com or .social doesn't really mean anything.

The 10 posts with the most downvotes are all requests to remove the bot.

These are some highlights from the top 12 posts sorted by "top"...

1. "My personal view is to remove the bot."
2. "One problem I’ve noticed is that the bot doesn’t differentiate between news articles and opinion pieces."
3. "You don’t need every post to have a comment basically saying “this source is ok”
4. "I think it should be removed"
5. "My personal view is that the bot provides a net negative, and should be removed." <- me
6. "Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all."
7. "Remove it."
8. "MBFC’s ratings for “factual reporting” are a joke."
9. "This thread is a mess." <- also me, sorry
10. "The bot is basically a spammer saying “THIS ARTICLE SUCKS EVEN THOUGH I DIDN’T READ IT” on every damn post. If that was a normal user account you’d ban it."
11. "The majority of feedback has been negative. I can’t recall a single person arguing in its favor, but I can think of many, myself included, arguing against it."
12. "In literally every thread I’ve seen it post in, it gets downvoted to hell."

To put it charitably, 2 and 6 are only mildly critical or express tepid support, at best. The remainder are... something less than supportive.

I understand that this is not a democracy, and that it's ultimately up to your good selves to guide the community as you see fit. However, I think there are valid criticisms to be made regarding your collective ability to engage with feedback.

Anyone who disagrees with me is a bot!

He only has one mode of operation. When things aren't going well he's just going to double down on the same tactics.

Whoever hasn't made up their mind about Trump in the last eight years is precisely the type of idiot who will be swayed by these types of things in the weeks and months before the election.

This isn't going to be the foundation for a landslide against Trump. My point is, it's not good for him.