MediaBiasFactChecker almost broke the whole system - SLRPNK
slrpnk.net
Everything’s been working smoothly, with nothing to report about the moderation bot. The community has been quiet but productive, which was precisely the goal, and the bot working smoothly with no issues. However, something almost went wrong in a particular entertaining fashion which I thought I would share. The algorithm for classifying troll users doesn’t have any polarity. It only knows which users are opposed to which other users. 50% of the time, it’ll get its whole ranking system backwards, so the troll users are the normal ones, and everyone else gets negative rank, because the math works just as well under that ranking regime. Generally this isn’t a problem, because there’s a step: # Flip the sign if we arrived at a majority-negative ranking, which can happen if -min_val > max_val: rank[1:] *= -1 The most popular user is always more popular than the least popular troll is unpopular, by quite a big margin, so that works fine. However. Things have changed. MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world is so unpopular that it’s almost (1% margin) more unpopular than the highest-rank user is popular. If that had happened, the whole polarity would have flipped, every user would have been banned, all the trolls would have been unbanned. Mass hysteria. I only happened to notice it before it happened and stop the bot. It’s on track to be the least popular user on Lemmy, with about 5 times lower rank than some of the most notorious trolls. Have fun with this information. I started checking the median rank of all users, instead. Thanks MediaBiasFactChecker.
      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        3 days ago

        They’re openly hostile to anyone who says that Democrats should not support Netanyahu’s genocide.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          9·
          3 days ago

          Not really, only the ones who say that you should withhold support from all Democrats in a binary election system. And anyone who says anything that can possibly be interpreted as such. And quite a few where they have to invent the nonsupport out of whole cloth.

          It’s not so much that they’re Zionists, it’s more that many of them are pro-Dem to the point where any dissent against any Dems, especially the leaders, gets the same ferocious reactions as when you criticize the Mango Mussolini amongst his fascist cult.

          Or to put it another way: apart from understandable election pragmatism, there’s a lot of people there who cares more about pretending that their “team” is perfect than about holding the people supposed to represent them accountable for participating in countless crimes against humanity.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
            41·
            3 days ago

            Not really, only the ones who say that you should withhold support from all Democrats in a binary election system

            I have never, not a single fucking time, suggested withholding support. That has never fucking mattered.

            Or to put it another way: apart from understandable election pragmatism, there’s a lot of people there who cares more about pretending that their “team” is perfect than about holding the people supposed to represent them accountable for participating in countless crimes against humanity.

            And I don’t give the benefit of the doubt to people who are willing to jettison their humanity just for their “team”. Particularly when they’re super fucking excited to get Dick Cheney’s endorsement.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              2·
              3 days ago

              I completely agree. Just pointing out the technical difference between pro-zionism and harassing/othering anti-zionists for reasons only indirectly related 😉

              • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
                31·
                3 days ago

                In the next few weeks, we’ll see if centrists start abandoning their hostility toward the anti-genocide wing of the party. I don’t think they will. I think you’ve drawn a distinction without a difference.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  3·
                  3 days ago

                  It’s a distinction without much of a practical difference, yes, but I still think that not considering atrocities a deal breaker and being in favor of the atrocities should be distinguished between.

                  Can’t argue as effectively against a wrong conclusion if you don’t know the reasons for reaching it, is my point.

                  And yeah, you’re right about them already blaming everyone to the left of Reagan for the pro-Cheney campaign failing to defeat a personally repulsive fascist idiot 🤦

                  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    3·
                    3 days ago

                    It’s a distinction without much of a practical difference, yes, but I still think that not considering atrocities a deal breaker and being in favor of the atrocities should be distinguished between.

                    Agreed until they start being hostile to all criticism of the party, even when the criticism is about genocide support.