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…

  • @Maggoty
    link
    8
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    You absolutely do not have to be authoritarian to be far right. And the Ayn Rand Institute is libertarian. Their goal is to effectively end all governance in favor of corporations. So yes you are defending that.

    And someone like MBFC presenting that as a centrist position of any kind is a giant problem.

    You say I’m dishonest but you keep saying obvious things but then slipping in ridiculous stuff. Like saying MBFC should be more conservative because it’s American. But then ignoring that it rates international papers.

    Is Al Jazeera doing endorsements now? BBC? Whose the British government backing?

    You cannot have this both ways. It cannot be an American scale, available globally, rating globally.

    • @Carrolade
      link
      English
      -63 months ago

      No, libertarians advocate for small government, not no government. Someone still has to provide for the common defense, uphold laws, things like that. And far right is always authoritarian in some way, shape or form. I cannot think of a single government in history we would describe as far right that was not authoritarian. Also, there is a difference between seeking accurate classification of something from a certain perspective and defending it. You are not very accurate at describing things, including my arguments. Again, center does not equal good. Center just means center, and is often bad.

      It does not matter if it rates international sources or not, if doing so for an American audience as an American organization, it should do so from an American perspective. There is nothing wrong with explaining to Americans how international sources fit into their established worldview.

      Note, I never said MBFC should be more conservative. If anything they should be shifting slightly leftward as Trump’s popularity wanes, to track with the attitudes of the country. Not a lot though, the race is still close to even.

      I don’t understand what you’re getting at with AJ and BBC endorsements, can you elaborate?

      • @Maggoty
        link
        53 months ago

        No. Small government sounds nice but it’s only ever meant two things. Privatization or deregulation and strict social laws. Depends on whose saying it. And libertarians are in the privatization group. No matter how you cut it, that’s a radical position. The center is occupied by the regulated market and public services the vast majority of Americans enjoy and like.

        And it very much matters that it rates international sources. That makes it inaccurate by design everywhere outside the US. A disinfo op, meant to confuse people and whitewash conservative sources.

        They shouldn’t be tracking any one country. There are objective definitions for political ideology.

        • @Carrolade
          link
          English
          -33 months ago

          Well, I’m with you that libertarianism is an impractical and harmful idea, most right-leaning positions are. This does not make it far off from our center, though, when the vast majority of things we interact with in the US already are privatized. Many prisons and schools, businesses, land, etc etc. All in the private sector. So, an ideology that wants privatization of what little we have left, like say, the post office, is not a particularly extreme position for our culture. A far more extreme position would be wanting to do away with our voting and implementing an authoritarian government, as Trump seems to want.

          So, there actually is no such thing as some grand, objective scale, no matter what scale you use, attitudes can shift over time and different positions can be adopted or dropped by different points on the scale due to changing technologies, attitudes and situations. The most important thing is that the scale is consistently applied, and provides useful information to the audience. I would argue that the most useful information is provided when the scale is balanced between the various positions that its audience is familiar with. So, again, since its an American organization doing work for an American audience, I think it behoves them to remain accurate to American perceptions.

          It should not be trying to change anyone’s mind, or change how they view the world, simply scale everything that’s out there in a way its audience can find approachable and understandable. It’s not intended to be a reform mechanism, but a service to the culture as the culture exists. This is not whitewashing anymore than the US itself is very whitewashed. But again, it’s not MBFC’s job to fix us, that’s what education is for, not news media or fact/bias checking. It is not an education tool.

          • @Maggoty
            link
            53 months ago

            So the points are made up and nothing matters. Got it.

            But about libertarians, you haven’t begun to see what can be privatized. By the time they’re done you’ll be living in housing attached to your job. Unions will be legal but anyone attempting to form one will be murdered. You will be paid in company scrip. Hostile takeover will mean PMCs from your competitor actually taking the factories by force. And the list goes on. If you think libertarians are just after the post office then you’re not paying attention.

            And again. You cannot just declare it’s a US only platform while rating international sources and making that available to international people. That is an international platform by default.

            • @Carrolade
              link
              English
              -33 months ago

              Actually yes, the points are all made up. This is just how human society works. We were not given these ideas by god or something, set into some type of mystical stone. We came up with them all, and we can change them any time we feel like it. It definitely matters though.

              I think you read too much science fiction. Company housing actually used to be a thing in the US, but corporate PMCs invading each others factories is unlikely any time this century.

              I didn’t say it was a US only platform, again, you are saying things I am not saying. What I am saying is that it is a US service, not US-only, simply by-and-for the US and thus from a US perspective. Other people are free to use it or not use it as they see fit.

              • @Maggoty
                link
                33 months ago

                So you’re inviting people to use it and get information you admit is out of alignment. Got it.

                And yes all of that happened in the 20th century except the PMCs. But once you destroy government, what’s going to stop them? Their natural good will? No you refuted that theory. (“We were not given these ideas by god or something,”)

                I just have to ask, do you work for MBFC? Because you are bending over backwards to defend its ratings.

                • @Carrolade
                  link
                  English
                  -33 months ago

                  It is not out of alignment with the US in the slightest.

                  There you go again with destroying the government, despite that being nowhere in the platform. And when did companies pay with “private scripp” instead of US dollars?

                  No, I just don’t like misinformation. You very much do, with your grossly exaggerated claims. I am very unsurprised that any sort of fact checking service deeply bothers you.

                  • @Maggoty
                    link
                    3
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    Again. You cannot have it both ways it’s either an international platform or locked down to Americans only. And even then it’s a subjective standard being used, not an objective one. A standard that whitewashes radical conservative rags.

                    It was legal and prevalent until the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Since then there have been a couple wartime exceptions that were done at a 1 to 1 ratio. Company scrip that was outlawed was never at a one to one ratio.

                    And just because they never use the words “destroy the government” does not mean they won’t do it. The actions they want to take will destroy the government. It’s like when they advocate for the “fair tax”. They know what the results are, they’re just hoping you don’t. (Lookup Brownback Experiment) And libertarians advocate for the complete elimination of the income tax. Not just the deep cuts that Brownback did.

                    These aren’t exaggerated. These are things corporations did in history. And while a factory was never taken over by force, the railroads used force to murder people and clear land for the railroads. We know what happens if you don’t have laws, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms. I’m sorry someone failed to teach you history in school but don’t come in here calling actual history an exaggeration.