this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
108 points (85.1% liked)

World News

38797 readers
2081 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

We've had some trouble recently with posts from aggregator links like Google Amp, MSN, and Yahoo.

We're now requiring links go to the OG source, and not a conduit.

In an example like this, it can give the wrong attribution to the MBFC bot, and can give a more or less reliable rating than the original source, but it also makes it harder to run down duplicates.

So anything not linked to the original source, but is stuck on Google Amp, MSN, Yahoo, etc. will be removed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Aside from the extremely vocal minority who seek it out to downvote it and complain about it constantly, it does seem like people don't care about it when they don't need it and appreciate it when they do. Very unscientific observation but obscure sources usually seem to have more upvotes. It doesn't need to be useful to everyone all the time to have value.

Having quick access to MBFC and Wiki links is great and useful for mods, I assume. I also like that it carves out a thread to discuss sources. Replying to the bot makes it seem much less like you're attacking the OP, which I always hated pre-bot.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

No it's got a bias problem. They consistently rate sources they perceive as left as less factual, consider conservative anarchists to be mainstream, and rate literal campaign websites as not very biased. They also made up their own terminology that's loaded, despite the existence of objective terms for decades.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

You're wrong. Tons of peer-reviewed research says you're wrong. There just isn't any that says you're right.

Do you have an explanation for why this bias you claim is so pervasive cannot be found when anyone looks for it? Is it... paranormal bias? Is it just really shy bias that hides when it gets scared?

How can that be true and MBFC be in broad consensus across thousands of news sites with different tools from academics, journalists, and other bias monitoring organizations? Both things cannot be true. In fact, whenever someone compares MBFC to any other resource they find almost perfect correlation, not bias. I'd love for you to explain to me where that bias disappears to when under a microscope.

Is there a conspiracy between bias monitoring organizations, journalists, and academics you have evidence of? Are the prestigious journals that published them in on it too? I can't wait to sketch out this vast global conspiracy to pull the wool over our eyes and convince us that Democracy Now is just... highly factual. Those bastards!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

That's not saying what you want it to say. It's a top level picture taking great pains to speak in general terms. So no, it's not a guard against MBFC having a bias where it rates conservative stuff higher.

We've found concrete examples of bias in MBFC that would be very hard to see if you're just smashing 11,000 data points against each other. This requires checking the actual sites by hand, basically doing their self appointed job again and checking their work. Then checking it against MBFCs other ratings for internal consistency.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

consider conservative anarchists

That sounds like an oxymoron. I mean there are anarcho-capitalists but most other anarchists don't consider them anarchist.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You know them as their brand name, Libertarians. I'm making the point that they are not a mainstream center ideology as MBFC protrays.