I know MediaBiasFactCheck is not a be-all-end-all to truth/bias in media, but I find it to be a useful resource.
It makes sense to downvote it in posts that have great discussion – let the content rise up so people can have discussions with humans, sure.
But sometimes I see it getting downvoted when it’s the only comment there. Which does nothing, unless a reader has rules that automatically hide downvoted comments (but a reader would be able to expand the comment anyways…so really no difference).
What’s the point of downvoting? My only guess is that there’s people who are salty about something it said about some source they like. Yet I don’t see anyone providing an alternative to MediaBiasFactCheck…
Everyone down voting should read this: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ (the entire scoring methodology is transparent)
And then laugh at this.
I don’t care if it’s transparent. You can be transparently biased.
It’s biased.
I’m inherently distrustful of anything that tries to tell me if a source is biased or not. Who verifies that the bot isn’t also programmed to have an agenda?
I think I’ll just stick to plain old critical thinking skills and evaluate things for myself.
It thinks that the guardian would have only medium credibility
I downvote every bot post I come across
I really like it, but I can see people being upset if it doesn’t align with their world view.
Some folks are just angry it exists and downvote it no matter what.
I’ll downvote it sometimes, early in the discussion, to get other comments above it and get it out of the way, but only if the source is a reliable one. I only ever really upvote it if I think the source needs attention called to it.
I blocked that annoying piece of shit. It added nothing to discussion.
IIRC, it lists a zionist/anti-Palestine news website as highly trustworthy. I can’t tell which side is right, I have it blocked.
Sites can be biased and tendentious without being factually inaccurate, though.
It’s possible to factually accurate with heavy bias, but since that would require selective reporting to enforce a single worldview I wouldn’t consider that “highly trustworthy”.
Consider the following hypothetical headlines:
“Teen Killed by Islamic Group During Shooting”
“Terrorist Shooting at Mosque, 20 Dead”Both are technically factually accurate ways to describe a hypothetical scenario where a teen shoots up a place of worship before being stopped by one of the victims, but they both paint very different pictures. Would you consider both sources “highly trustworthy”?
I’m not saying they can’t. I’m referring to a point that was championed in many a post by some .ml figures calling for the bot’s decommissioning. I don’t use the site (can’t even recall its name), and can’t speak for its credibility.
I guess I didn’t make it clear that it was second-hand information and not my personal informed opinion. In my defense, I was running on 4 hours of sleep.
What does Zionist mean? It hasn’t affected my life enough to actually look it up but I see it on every other article in the Israel/Palestine conflict.
wikipedia has a fairly neutral article on it.
Today, it usually refers to one of two groups- the far right political faction in Israel that believe there can be no peace with a two state solution (i.e. no Palestine,) and that it’s their god-given right to murder all palestinians to acheive peace…
Or the christian zionists that support them because their own faith says their god won’t come to save them until they- the jews- rebuild their temple. or something. Fundies get weird.
What? Wasn’t Israel originally the Palestine before a part of Palestine was designated Israel?
How far back do you want to go?
If we’re talking Bronze Age, then the exodus didn’t happen. Or rather, only a small handful of refugees showed up and their story eventually became assimilated into Judaea’s and Israel’s cultural narrative.
Tracing ancestry back that far is problematic, but both cultures have equally valid and long standing claims to the region.
It’s like the Hatfield and McCoy feud, except it’s existed since the start of the Bronze Age (or earlier,)
In more modern history, Palestine was a British colony taken during ww1 as the leftovers of the Ottoman Empire, when the Palestine Mandate was done in an attempt to back out, and Jewish militants attacked everyone involved eventually leading to the creation of the current State of Israel.
No, but that’s a common misconception. Palestine has never previously been a country, but was a region of the Ottoman Empire, then a part of the British Empire that more or less consisted of modern day Israel, Palestine, and Jordan.
Under the Ottomans and the British, there was a Jewish minority, mostly in the region of Palestine, but also in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc.
Starting in the 1800s, Jews living in Europe began to move to the region in larger numbers (as well as Jews living in other parts of the Middle East and Africa). This was primarily motivated by antisemitic events in Europe, but also similar to the national movements that led to Prussia becoming Germany, the pan-Arab movement, re-establishing Poland, etc.
Here is a photo of the 1931 Palestinian football team that included Palestinian Jews as well as Palestinian Arabs.
Precisely. Wtf.
Zionism is an ideology that believes in a Jewish state consisting of mainly Jews and which claim the land of Palestine. So Zionists want to take over Palestine to extend their Jewish state as they believe that land to be theirs.
(Correct me if I am wrong)
It promotes the existing power structure, which some people think is no bueno.
For example, if you post this:
https://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/01/30/ret.axis.facts/
the bot will say it is a highly accurate source with highly factual reporting so people will tend to believe with certainty that the U.S. should invade Iraq.
Because it doesn’t support their agenda. People don’t want news from credible sources but opinions that confirm their world views.
Bullshit. It has been proven multiple times to be biased with explanations like “this source has never posted untrue things, but we still give it a mixed reliability rating”. It’s an opinion of one dude and it shows.
I downvoted then blocked it because:
-
I don’t trust its specific analysis of sites. Others detail some examples.
-
I don’t think whole-site analysis is very useful in combatting misinformation. The reliability and fullness of facts presented by any single site varies a lot depending on the topic or type of story.
-
Other than identifying blatant disinformation sites I don’t see what useful information it provides. But even that’s rare here and rarely needs a bot to spot.
-
Why is an open-source, de-centralized platform giving free space to a private company?
-
Giving permission for a private trust-assesing company to be operating in an open public forum makes it look as if these assessments reflect a neutral reality that most or all readers would agree on or want to be aware of. It’s a service that people can seek out of they decide they trust it.
Presenting this company’s assessment on each or most articles gives them undue authority that is especially inappropriate on the fediverse.
Thank you, those are the precise point that summarize my gripes with it. In particular, I feel it encourages people to perceive it as an authoritative source and to form their opinions on sites it rates (often wrongly) without additional thinking / fact checking.
It’s basically a company propaganda tool that can change its own option and ratings any time, influencing others in the process.
Those are some great points. I do wish we had something better. But I find it to be “good enough” for when it’s a source I’m unfamiliar with.
Can’t quite say I have the time or motivation to start reading a bunch of other articles from a given source when I’m concerned about its credibility.
TBH, I just don’t think something better is possible - I suspect that there are no valid shortcuts to trust.
Unless something is just obviously bullshit, it will always take some time to develop a sense of how the different sources are treating a new story. Even a trusted source can prove unreliable on a particular topic.
It’s uncomfortable living with that uncertainty until you’ve seen a story from enough angles that you can judge for yourself. But either the story is important enough to me to spend that time, or I just accept that I can’t really know.
TBH, I just don’t think something better is possible - I suspect that there are no valid shortcuts to trust.
That’s why I like MBFC. I understand it’s impossible for them to be perfect and unbiased. But no one else is doing that work, so I’ll take what I can get.
Even a trusted source can prove unreliable on a particular topic.
I like the rule of thumb that good sources are more likely to be biased when reporting things internal to their own country. I usually look for the BBC, but if it’s about the UK, I’ll find another source. Al Jazeera is similar.
Good summary. I think the first point is the most concerning because it’s actively spreading misinformation and giving the appearance of credibility.
-
I hate bots
You can block them
I didn’t say I don’t like seeing them, I said I hate them. they represent nothing but spam as far as my emotional response
I agree with op, It seems to be in your best interest to block them if they are effecting you that badly.
I feel like I really shouldn’t have to. if people genuinely wanted to use your bot, they would opt in
they would need to know about it is my only issue with that. It’s better to know and opt out, that way you know that it exists. Otherwise there was resources that nobody would know existed otherwise. A users personal opinion shouldn’t impact other users, and forcing bots to be opt in would impact the people who would want to use them just are unaware they exist.
No other major platform does bots as opt in, and that’s generally the reason for it
lol so people’s personal opinions should only affect others so long as the effect is one you agree with? just make it one option for all bots. right when you sign up: do you want to see bots? check yes or no.
this isn’t supposed to be like other major platforms. most sites are concerned with driving engagement and retention, and user-made bots is a really cheap and lazy way to do that.
No it would be stupid to think that, however if there is an argument between two ideologies, the side that gives the most Freedom should be the side that’s represented I would have thought the fediverse of all places would agree with that principle.
Secondly that option already exists on at least the three instances I’ve signed up. I figured it was a universal setting, Whether that option actually works or not I’m not sure because I’ve never actually checked it because I don’t mind Bots if there’s one that’s annoying I just block it.
As for your last part, I wouldn’t agree that Bots are a cheap way to drive engagement, most Developers won’t make a bot with the expectation of bringing more users to the platform or drive engagement, they make a bot to fill a gap in utility that the platform is not currently giving, Beit entertainment, moderation, informational. The only platform that I can think actively creates Bots with the intention of increasing monetary value and engagement would be Discord and even then that’s more of a stretch because it’s more Discord forcing the monetary features on the Developers
Because it’s biased, takes up too much space, provides nothing of value, and its posts are by definition low effort.
For me to like a bot requires it provides something of value, be unbiased, and doesn’t take up too much space.
MBFC is ran by a Zionist and rates obvious israeli lobbies such as the ADL as highly credible. Even when MBFC admits they are israeli lobby groups in their description.
MBFC serves no other purpose than to push liberal Zionist narratives which coincidentally happens to be exactly the positions of the Democrats
For more info see https://lemmy.world/post/18245990
