That’s partially the reason for making my AutoTL;DR bot.
Doing god’s work
I’ve seen a few bot-tldrs and while I really appreciate the idea, I’m not sure if they achieve that 100%. The summary is often a bit long (sometimes just as long as the article) and as I understand it the one I see most often is grabbing sentences and stitching them together, which is nice since it keeps the actual content, but it can be a bit awkward to read.
Maybe yours is working differently, I think generally speaking it’d be best to have one paragraph summarizing the article (chatGPT-style), or having a tool that creates new headlines based on the content and replaces the actual headline itself.
Even with the perfect summary, there’s still the issue that people have to look at the comments to see it. I‘d imagine most people just scroll past the post itself.
I think it’s the one you see the most, that stitches sentences together. Using AI for this is very unwise, eventually it’s gonna make something up and it’s gonna straight up lie.
In my opinion the bot does a better job than most actual people would do when summarizing. It’s not perfect and it will never be, but I’m quite ok with how it works.
It’s definitely worth having that bot and I think it’s great that you’re putting the work in. It just doesn’t fix all the “misleading headlines” issues if people don’t even look at the comments or don’t read the (not super short) summary.
Well, to be fair, I’m fixing the issue for myself. I thought it might be nice to share with people who’d appreciate it, but first and foremost I’m writing the software that I want to use myself (which is true for my other bots or Lemmy-related software as well).
I see both sides. Thank you for your service; I for one find it helpful.
There’s just way too many articles being posted where at best the headline only implies something that isn’t actually true and at worst just plainly lies.
The funny thing is, even the article itself is often already correcting the headline, but I can’t imagine that more than 10% are actually reading every one, which means there’s a constant stream of misinformation being broadcasted. Not every one of these has high stakes, but still.
Here’s two examples that I just came across:
- Signal Denies Existence of Zero-Day Vulnerability on the App | Post. In the article: Someone posted unfounded claims about a vulnerability, Signal investigated but didn’t find anything, the person apologized and took the tweet down.
- Goldman Sachs exec reportedly said Apple Card savings account was a ****ing mistake | Post. In the article: “Mistake” isn’t even part of the quote. A person is saying this before it started and that person may not have even been involved in the project after.
And because people are only reading the title, they upvote and move on. Even though the comments set it straight as well. There’s a lot more that I’ve come across. It’s infuriating.
I feel like there was a big push for quantity of content on Lemmy, so everyone set up bots to push content to Lemmy and now we’re stuck with a bunch of shitty content on Lemmy lol.
The posts I’ve come across didn’t seem like bot posts
I hate headlines. They’re written on purpose to piss me off and sometimes they work. Maybe I should stop reading headlines and just read the articles instead. Probably healthier than the other way around.
How would you identify and decide which articles to read?
I’d pick a reasonable source, then I’d go with a mix of pure chance and good old fashioned skimming.
By stopping reading headlines and just read the articles instead.
Just read every article?
Just read the articles instead
Which ones?
The articles.
the articles
all of them?
(I can see your take. I’m not making fun of you, but) I can imagine this being a reason why Twitter got rid of titles for articles in tweets.
deleted by creator
This is a tough one. While I like it, if we don’t drive traffic to sites that produce good content, they’ll stop production of good content.
those are the true heroes
I think submitting the whole article will put the instance in danger of copyright strikes.
A lot of news sites seem to change the articles and headlines as the events go on, meaning you can post one title, and go back later to find a completely different take on it.
A/B tests I saw a few times where a refresh would suddenly change the title of an article
No. There are studies about that, see e.g. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/misinformation-desk/202212/study-few-people-read-what-they-share for a more recent one. That’s also why Facebook, Twitter & Co at various times implemented various features trying to push you reading the stuff you post.
On Lemmy people don’t really share, but they might upvote stuff as long as the headline supports their personal biases, so I guess that’s reasonably similar to what’s going on in Facebook and Xitter.
Old habits die hard from reddit of coming for the comments than the article.
Occasionally I bump into a BS article that totally deserves a million downvotes. However, the comments are really good, and they deserve twice the number of upvotes. People with a PhD in the subject matter are there tearing the article into tiny shreds and wiping the floor with the resulting mush. Reading stuff like that can be entertaining and educational, so do I upvote or downvote the article? First world problems again…
Isn’t Lemmy primarily a link sharing network?
Isn’t there like 99-1 rule or something like that? So the idea is the vast majority of users don’t share links, write posts, draw pictures or anything like that. Instead, they just read the posts and comments. Some of them upvote or maybe even drop a comment here and there. The action of upvoting contributes to certain ideas spreading on the internet.
I would suppose that on FB/X vast majority just read the posts and occasionally also share them. Sharing over there is about as easy as upvoting is in here, so I guess there’s plenty of that type of sharing going on.
Crafting an original post or making a post about a particular link requires little more than a single click, so I don’t think that many people actually share that way. Anyway, Lemmy is indeed a link sharing platform, but now we’re talking a second type of sharing. These things should have clearer names.
What is Facebook doing to encourage people to read things they post? When I dropped Facebook in 2015 it was mostly memes rather than articles being put in my timeline. Are they promoting articles over memes now too?
I didn’t read it, so I didn’t share it initially, but this was the article I saw earlier:
https://www.vox.com/2021/5/10/22429240/facebook-prompt-users-read-articles-before-sharing
This is the kind of thing where moderators need to put in a lot of active work to enforce some level of content and behavior standards or it’ll simply collapse to the basic state of human laziness like most online communities.
There’s not exactly anything wrong with that - it’s perfectly normal - but people will always default to doing this kind of thing unless there’s active effort to prevent it, and I haven’t really seen any Fediverse communities interested in doing that work yet (which I wouldn’t blame them for; it’s nontrivial)
It would probably help to only look at posts with a certain amount of votes where more people will end up seeing it
I use the opposite approach and sort by new in subscribed communities only by default and take note of the submitter. Some people make consistently higher quality posts than others.
We really should moderate the titles more. I just realized that every article I ignored I basically accepted as truth. Or, at least, my brain accepted as truth in the background. I’ll see the same lie twice a day everyday and start processing as fact.
I try not to editorialize headlines too much when I post, which means if the headline is clickbait it stays, even if the article content that talks about something else. Depending on how egregious I’ll add something to the body or append it to the title.
Yeah I’m with you on that one. I often feel like I might get it wrong and it’s generally best to keep the original. More often than not the answer is probably to just not post the article at all, if the headline is misleading and the actual news is far from newsworthy.
Please, summarize the article instead of regurgitating their bad titles - or even better don’t post links from sources that use bad clickbaity titles.
We don’t have to let Lemmy devolve into Facebook/Twitter/reddit/…
To give you an example, I posted about “ROCKSMITH 2014 LEAVING STORES” and linked to the Ubisoft article about it. They had the title all capitalized, not me, so I just added “- Ubisoft” at the end to show it was the official announcement.
I wrote at length in the body about what that means for Steam, Ubisoft’s plan for Rocksmith subscription service, what people might need to access Custom DLC before it stops being sold, to drive discussion on several related topics to this announcement.
From the Beehaw sidebar: “We do want you coming here and sharing links to news articles, websites you find, starting discussions, connecting with others, and in general doing what you see on other social media websites.”
What if the focus of Beehaw and/or Lemmy in general is not as a link aggregation platform but instead a community of topic discussion? People are rewarded for posting links to articles with upvotes which only gives incentive to continue posting the same not-read content that they think the respective subs will like (upvote).
Instead, we should be rewarding people who are actively engaging with the community. Not broadcast posting the way it goes on mastodon or IG, etc., but actual back and forth interaction with the community.
Maybe take away the ability to upvote a link post and reserve that for the actual discussion parts that take place?
Maybe take away the ability to upvote a link post and reserve that for the actual discussion parts that take place?
this would probably cause its own problems as a design choice, but it’s also not even possible with Lemmy without changing the underlying code (which is a whole ordeal) so that’s not really on the table.
It’d be pretty trivial to hide upvotes on list pages and show a reply count instead. That doesn’t seem like it would be a difficult feature for almost anyone to contribute to Lemmy and it would certainly change the incentives.
Also, it’d make it impossible to upvote from the list page which would be a good thing in my opinion.
What if the focus of Beehaw and/or Lemmy in general is not as a link aggregation platform but instead a community of topic discussion? People are rewarded for posting links to articles with upvotes which only gives incentive to continue posting the same not-read content that they think the respective subs will like (upvote).
I think that clickbait titles are effective because they trigger an emotional response. We have more or less same brains with same biases and heuristics as users on other platforms. So I don’t think that this system can work, people will continue posting and upvoting such content. Fast and strict content moderation, however, could be effective.
Sort by Active
This is built in into Lemmy, you don’t need to look at votes to decide to participate.
While submitting a link can be a way to start a conversation, you don’t need to. Just write whatever you want, and click post.
Actually, why did OP put a meme image in this post? Wat to ask something, then ask it. The place is what we make of it.
The issue is the way that news is consumed these days. You always used to have a catchy newspaper headline with a title to get you to buy it (extra extra read all about it insert catchy alliteration here) . People dont consume news. They dont read articles. They receive headlines and then immediately engage on some other website that profits off sharing this content.
Clickbate for all the woes exists because it works and people do click it. Or are more likely to click and share than if it was a dull informative headline. It’s the same as on youtube. As long as the actual meat of the article is fine and the headline isnt too much of a BS article it doesnt bother me too much but of course there are limits to that.
There’s a difference between clickbait and misleading though. It probably often overlaps, but headlines can be clickbait without being misleading: “Doctors hate this one trick” isn’t really giving you wrong information. “Signal Denies Existence of Zero-Day Vulnerability on the App”, however, strongly implies that Signal has a security flaw that it stubbornly refuses to fix, which harms the reputation of the App and isn’t at all true if you read the actual article.
That’s the main issue I’m having with these headlines. They‘re not just annoying, they’re spreading misinformation.
