Ignoring the fact that I keep saying the point is to not bother including it at all and has been since the beginning. That any bias source is pointless unless you are using it for moderation purposes at which point it is none of our concern cause we won’t be able to see the untrustworthy articles you would decide to delete.
Demanding an alternative when being told the concept of picking any single source bias checker is pointless, insists that you refuse to accept any idea on this other than a deep seated desire that you want it for emotional reasons. Last time I repeat this. You are a waste of time and truly a poor communicator.
You can’t really say we aren’t considering alternatives when I’ve provided a list of alternatives we did consider all while providing absolutley none of your own.
Tell me what to look at, we’ll consider it.
Ideally:
API access for automation.
Free, we’re all volunteers here, we have $0 budget.
Ignoring the fact that I keep saying the point is to not bother including it at all and has been since the beginning. That any bias source is pointless unless you are using it for moderation purposes at which point it is none of our concern cause we won’t be able to see the untrustworthy articles you would decide to delete.
Demanding an alternative when being told the concept of picking any single source bias checker is pointless, insists that you refuse to accept any idea on this other than a deep seated desire that you want it for emotional reasons. Last time I repeat this. You are a waste of time and truly a poor communicator.
Again, your complaint is that we’re using a single source checker, but you offer no alternative.
If you want to say “Why don’t you use ‘x’?” I’m happy to look at it. So far, we’re striking out.
But the bot DOES use two sources, MBFC and Ground.News.
You can’t really say we aren’t considering alternatives when I’ve provided a list of alternatives we did consider all while providing absolutley none of your own.
Tell me what to look at, we’ll consider it.
Ideally: