We're not roasting the volunteer mods because we can't ignore the bot. We're roasting the volunteer mods because the experience of having someone in a position of power over your environment, and having them show callous indifference to how everyone in the community sees it, and what we want them to be doing with their position of power, leads people to start roasting. Sometimes out of all possible proportion to how big a deal the thing being complained about actually is.

It's part of the healthy interplay of human society that keeps the social contract well-maintained. Take it as a sign of love, that we value this community and want it to function well.

In what way does having the MediaBiasFactCheck bot help with misinformation? It's not very accurate, probably less than the average Lemmy reader's preexisting knowledge level. People elsewhere in these comments are posting specific examples, in a coherent, respectful fashion.

Most misinformation clearly comes in the form of accounts that post a steady stream of "reliable" articles which don't technically break the rules, and/or in bad-faith comments. You may well be doing plenty of work on that also, I'm not saying you're not, but it doesn't seem from the outside like a priority in the way that the bot is. What is the use case where the bot ever helped prevent some misinformation? Do you have an example when it happened?

I'm not trying to be hostile in the way that I'm asking these questions. It's just very strange to me that there is an overwhelming consensus by the users of this community in one direction, and that the people who are moderating it are pursuing this weird non-answer way of reacting to the overwhelming consensus. What bad thing would happen if you followed the example of the !news moderators, and just said, "You know what? We like the bot, but the community hates it, so out it goes." It doesn't seem like that should be a complex situation or a difficult decision, and I'm struggling to see why the moderation team is so attached to this bot and their explanations are so bizarre when they're questioned on it.

The bot is instituted by the Admins

When did this happen? The admins instituted it for !politics, and the admins changed their minds about having it for !news and friends, but wanted to keep it in !politics?

with good reason

What's the reason?

There are a lot of people in politics who are opposing RCV, because it erodes their power. Some of them are Democrats. Sure. That wasn't my question. My question was, why is the Green Party spending so much energy pursuing a doomed effort which can only elect Donald Trump, and such an infinitesimal amount of energy on advocating for fixing the system in a way that would let them actually get elected in the future?

It's a strange allocation of priorities.

I did look around for things the Green Party has done to support Ranked Choice Voting. You've sent me the RV tag search, which has a press release from January 2024 and the one before that, from February 2023, dealing with RCV. Hooray.

I did find a substantive thing that Jill Stein herself did to support it in 2017, which actually had something to do with Maine putting it into action: https://mainegreens.org/news/in-the-news/107-jill-stein-joins-push-to-save-ranked-choice-voting-in-maine

That's good. Why hasn't she done anything since then? Why is always the focus on attacking the Democrats, and the focus if at all beyond that is a tepid hand-wave in the direction of RCV, when that is the solution that would lead to them being able to get elected? I didn't look very hard, but I did look, and this was the most recent thing I was able to find since January:

https://mainemorningstar.com/2024/10/07/green-party-candidate-jill-stein-praises-maine-voting-system-as-means-to-oppose-genocide/

I didn't ask whether David Doonan had published a press release on a janky web site which was mostly complaining about Democrats trying to remove Green Party members from the ballot, in this FPTP election. This also somehow finds a way to blame the lack of RCV on the Democrats, when a lot of them support it. Here's a list:

https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/endorsers/

I don't see any Green Party people there. I have never heard Jill Stein talk about it, and I've heard her say a bunch of things. That's strange to me. But regardless of that, that's not what I asked. I also didn't ask whether you plan to vote for Kamala Harris. My question was:

Anyone in this thread who is saying Jill Stein is extremely important, but haven’t been saying anything about ranked choice voting or changing the voting system to make third parties realistic: Why? What’s your goal, why did you make that decision about your priorities?

Do you want to answer that question? You don't have to. You can change the subject again, if you'd like to.

So, what changed?

Support !rcv@ponder.cat if you want an alternative to the duopoly. It's on the ballot in a lot of places coming up.

If you're not doing that, but you are choosing to vote for a spoiler candidate, you can anticipate a whole lot more duopoly in the future.

I don’t think their aim is to be beneficial.

I am fetching the RSS feeds for particular channels, for which I need the channel ID.

Google gives out not only the RSS feed, but also the channel ID, if you click the menu under “share”, as someone else pointed out to me a couple days ago. You are very confused about things. This thing about it being against the TOS is pure fantasy.

No phone or screen usage for 1 hour after I wake up.

I haven't broken the addiction completely, but it's progress.

https://electrek.co/2022/11/15/inmotion-v5-electric-unicycle-review/

Get the helmet and padding, it's no joke. But from what I've heard, if you have the climate for it and are willing to take responsibility for your own safety on a whole new level, they are the future.

Can the pages play music, and animated avatars? I feel like you're onto something.

It's a hacked-together python script. Should I try to clean it up and open source it? It's not well-organized right now, though.