I’m going to be fine without Lemmy, it’s not worth much.

That’s not the conclusion I’d like you to draw. I’m an admin of a Lemmy instance. I wouldn’t volunteer so much of my time if I didn’t think Lemmy was valuable.

Lemmy.World has a central role in the Threadiverse, but not an essential one. Sh.itjust.works, Lemm.ee, Reddthat.com or another general instance could easily take over that role if the consensus determines that Lemmy.World doesn’t deserve it. Beehaw.org is the largest instance to de-federate from LW, and if things continue or get worse, LW’s admin’s actions may result in a re-ordering of the Threadiverse structure. Lemmy.World is not the same as the Theadiverse.

This is a radical option that is not possible in any corporate form of social media. If it occurs or the specter of it instigates the LW admins to relent, it would be a huge victory for democracy on the Threadiverse. A Lemmy instance can’t exist without its hosts and admins, but it also relies on the consensus of its commenters, posters, and voters. This gives you as a participant unprecedented control of how the communities that you build engage with the news and the world.

They’ve also removed comments critical of the bot, and ignored the overwhelming negative feedback and the consensus that the bot should be removed when they’ve opened the discussion up to the community.

I’d be satisfied if my criticism changed the mods minds, but at this point they are not my target audience. My goal in these comments is to inform those who are on the fence about why the bot is a bad idea, and signal boost the consensus that the bot’s assessments are illegitimate.

MBFC claims CNN is Left-Center, when it is owned by conservative billionaire John Malone, one of the largest landlords in the world. Lemmy.World mods need to stop feeding flak organizations like MBFC. Corporate propaganda is harmful to democracy.

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? Fact-checking is an essential tool in fighting the waves of fake news polluting the public discourse. But if that fact-checking is partisan, then it only acerbates the problem of people divided on the basics of a shared reality.

This is why a consortium of fact-checking institutions have joined together to form the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), and laid out a code of principles. You can find a list of signatories as well as vetted organizations on their website.

MBFC is not a signatory to the IFCN code of principles. As a partisan organization, it violates the standards that journalists have recognized as essential to restoring trust in the veracity of the news. I’ve spoken with @[email protected] about this issue, and his response has been that he will continue to use his tool despite its flaws until something better materializes because the API is free and easy to use. This is like searching for a lost wallet far from where you lost it because the light from the nearby street lamp is better. He is motivated to disregard the harm he is doing to [email protected], because he doesn’t want to pay for the work of actual fact-checkers, and has little regard for the many voices who have spoken out against it in his community.

By giving MBFC another platform to increase its exposure, you are repeating his mistake. Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all. Just like how the proliferation of fake news undermines the authority of journalism, the growing popularity of a fact-checking site by a political hack like Dave M. Van Zandt undermines the authority of non-partisan fact-checking institutions in the public consciousness.