No comments or anything, just lots of Downvotes.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1584 months ago
    1. People disagree on the bias bot reporting
    2. People don’t like their biases being made visible
    3. People don’t realize they have a bias
    4. People find the bot noisy
    • @NateNate60
      link
      634 months ago

      Someone just told me that it “labels everything short of fascism as ‘left-leaning’” and “tries to shift the Overton window” even further right than it already is in the US.

      And I suppose that is correct if your idea of the spectrum of normal political opinions is restricted to what you see on Lemmy, especially if your instance hasn’t defederated from Hexbear yet.

      • TheTechnician27
        link
        English
        954 months ago

        And yet ultimately, MBFC places their center – by their own admission – based on US politics, which is decidedly right of center within the developed world.

        • @NateNate60
          link
          -23
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          That’s correct. It’s intended for a US audience.

          If it were based on the European Overton window and you were American then there’s a good chance you would complain about its centre being centre-left for you.

          It’s not wrong; you’re just not in the intended audience.

          It’s not really possible to give internationally correct ratings. What an American considers centre-left is different from what a Frenchman considers centre-left, which is different from what a Pole considers centre-left. You can only report one, and the other two will then complain about it being wrong from their perspective.

          • azuth
            link
            fedilink
            English
            584 months ago

            It should then refrain from from posting on non US-media sources and/or stories and/or communities.

            Of course it won’t. It’s purpose is to promote it’s owners US-centric political window.

            It’s spamming political propaganda ,dressing it up as ‘facts’, and it’s getting it’s just deserts.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            364 months ago

            There is no need for regional tone in a “fact checker” bot. Facts are not regional. There is need for political education in the united states so that right wing things are considered right wing things again and not center positions. Respectively, anything leftist isnt communism.

            Truthfully the bot gets voted down because it furthers a Zionist agenda, same as the lemmy world administration by pushing it, and many less biased instances and user groups take offense with that.

          • @Maggoty
            link
            144 months ago

            This needs to die in a fire. It’s not the US Overton window. You can see that by far right sources listed as right center. Like the Ayn Rand Institute.

            • @NateNate60
              link
              14 months ago

              Just in curiosity, what is an example of a centre-right (by American standards) source for you? I make no comment about the Ayn Rand Institute as I know nothing about it

              • @Maggoty
                link
                54 months ago

                Sinclair and Fox News stations would be center right. Fox Opinion TV would be Right to Far right depending on the show and Ayn Rand is far right because it’s anarchy-capitalism.

                Center, or least biased are your fact based papers of record. BBC, NYT, WAPO, Baltimore Sun, LA Times, etc.

                • @NateNate60
                  link
                  14 months ago

                  I think you’re right in terms of the American spectrum. Do you have a link to the bot calling the Ayn Rand institute centre-right? I did some more digging into it.

                  I will happily retract my comment if you can.

          • @Jivebunny
            link
            114 months ago

            So the bias bot is biased, dammit

      • @AbouBenAdhem
        link
        English
        10
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Where anyone puts the “center” of the political spectrum is arbitrary and ultimately irrelevant. What we should still be able to expect is that it gets the ordering of sources correct—i.e., it doesn’t label Source A as being to the left of Source B if it’s actually to the right. And that relative ordering is still useful, as long as we bear in mind that the actual labels are otherwise arbitrary.

        • @Womble
          link
          English
          384 months ago

          They (MBFC) explicitly state that they rate sources as more credible the closer the sources are to their arbitrarily selected centre.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            374 months ago

            Which is ridiculous. If Democracy Now or ProPublica take great pains to get all their facts right (which they do), and the New York Post regularly outright makes shit up, they’re marked as equally reliable based on that metric, because they’re supposedly an equal distance away from the centre.

        • @I_Fart_Glitter
          link
          64 months ago

          It puts Reuters as the center and that seems pretty accurate, IMO.

          • @AbouBenAdhem
            link
            English
            34 months ago

            Definitely—so sources that are close together when projected onto a left-right axis may be far apart in a more multidimensional political space. But the relative ordering along that axis can still be accurate, even if the implied proximity isn’t.

            • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝
              link
              fedilink
              English
              14 months ago

              The assumes that the US Democrat-Republican spectrum is indeed a straight line in that space, and they are diametrically opposed.

          • @Maggoty
            link
            24 months ago

            US politics is too.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      15
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Personally I find it worthless because it lends credibility to sources that promoted the Iraq war, afghanistan, libya, syria, etc.

      Any source that covered a story where thousands to millions will be/are/were murdered for the profit of the military-industrial complex as anything but an unimaginable crime is instantly non-credible. Yes, that includes 99% of American media.

      Same with every media outlet wringing their hands about Hamas instead of the locking of millions of people in a concentration camp for decades that precipitated the attack.

    • @Jivebunny
      link
      24 months ago

      The bot is tuned for US bias. Europe bias: US left is centric here.

      • @Maggoty
        link
        104 months ago

        The bot isn’t even tuned for US bias. It’s tuned for conservative US bias. The papers of record that work really hard to be objective get listed as “left center”.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️
    link
    fedilink
    English
    143
    edit-2
    4 months ago
    1. It’s often wrong

    2. It’s a bot and yet I still see it with the option to hide bots. Someone said it was flagged properly the other day, but since it’s the ONLY self proclaimed bot that isn’t filtered by the “block bot accounts” option in Lemmy, I call bullshit.

    • @solrize
      link
      214 months ago

      I have it blocked so I didn’t notice that it slides past the bot filter. That is interesting, but blocking it works.

      • TheTechnician27
        link
        English
        194 months ago

        I might unblock it just to downvote it tbh.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1344 months ago

    Since you asked:

    1. The bot provides little “value” vs the noise it creates.

    I don’t need a bot to tell me that the BBC is a legit news source. Maybe if you flip it around and only publish a message if it’s a known scammy website, this might be less spammy. However, this “threshold for scamminess” would be very subjective.

    1. This bot is everywhere. This is closely related to the first point (“value” vs noise). It just sprang up one day and I saw it in every single thread, I’d read.

    Fortunately, most Lemmy clients allow blocking users - which I’ve done and I’m much happier with my Lemmy experience.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      974 months ago

      And 3., the blurb it posts is gigantic compared to what you’d actually want to know.

      Also 4. The media bias website has its own bias in that centre right outlets like CNN are classified as left.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        494 months ago

        Oh so Media Bias is from the USA and believes that anything that isn’t Republican is left 😂

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        184 months ago

        The blurb being gigantic is my main gripe. I use Sync, which includes a thumbnail of each link. The bot is wordy as fuck and links 5 different things. So every time I go the comments section, it looks like this:

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          44 months ago

          That looks like a terrible app. Voyager shows it as a collapsed post with like 1-2 lines of text unless you click on it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            64 months ago

            It’s configurable. I personally think Sync is the best Lemmy app out there. I started with Jerboa then Voyager, and feel that Sync is by far the most polished. It’s not FOSS though, so I get that it has a bad rep here. Personally I’m happy to pay a bit to the dev to support his awesome work for something I use for far too many hours every day.

        • skulblaka
          link
          fedilink
          34 months ago

          You can disable the big block previews in the sync settings. Or just block the bot. Or use the Lemmy option to just not show you bot accounts.

          Genuinely not trying to be an asshole, those are all options. I like the bot but I understand how not everyone might. These are options to prevent dealing with it without yanking it out of everyone’s hands.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            64 months ago

            Yeah, I get those are options. I just like having thumbnails for most everything else, since I hate clicking little text links on mobile. I used to use RiF back in the day and that was always painful for me.

      • @RedditRefugee69
        link
        -374 months ago

        I’m sorry but CNN being center right is definitely an indication of your own bias in our Lemmy echo chamber. Relative to the masses, it’s about center left but still shows significant pro-left coverage.

        Say what you want about there being a former no-kidding US communist party or that other country’s police systems make the whole US system right wing, but relative to the US (which mediabiasfactcheck is designed for) it is left. I was so impressed by the site many years ago when all the things I thought were centrist turned out to be biased toward my political beliefs. That’s what truth feels like

    • @Maggoty
      link
      134 months ago

      Worse it lists BBC as “left-center”. Which is weird in itself since the designation is usually lean left or center left. Political scientists don’t stress the loaded word first. So much about MBFC exposes the site as a biased amateur project it’s hard to imagine how it got as much traction as it did.

  • @Maggoty
    link
    1134 months ago

    Because it’s biased itself. They whitewash far right conservative sources while listing anything that tries to remain neutral and fact based as having a left bias. Left center to be exact. Then they put far right stuff in “right center” to make you think it’s equivalent.

    Their factual rating is largely subjective as well. With similar amounts of failed fact checks getting different ratings.

    So basically the guys who want to be the guardians of fact and bias are themselves acting in a biased manner instead of an objective one.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      54 months ago

      I only ever hear people mention “far right” (not familiar with this bot).

      Are there any sources that you, yourself, would consider “right center”?

      • @Maggoty
        link
        8
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Bloomberg, Forbes, and Fox News jump to mind.

        Edit - you know looking at Bloomberg’s site again I think you could make an argument for it but it does appear to be mostly concerned with fact based news centered on the finance industry. I’m just used to seeing shit guest opinion articles from them.

        Edit edit - in their place I offer up CNBC with their personal finance propaganda perpetually trying to convince Americans they just aren’t budgeting well enough.

    • Dramatic Shitposter
      link
      fedilink
      -234 months ago

      Because it’s biased itself. They whitewash far right conservative sources while listing anything that tries to remain neutral and fact based as having a left bias. Left center to be exact. Then they put far right stuff in “right center” to make you think it’s equivalent.

      Source?

      • @Maggoty
        link
        414 months ago

        You can check the categories on the MBFC website yourself but a couple choice picks in the “right center” category are the Ayn Rand Institute, advocates for self governance, and American Action Network.

        The first two are libertarian and pro Anarcho Capitalism. The second one attempts to masquerade as a non political education tool about politics. And third is a partisan group that runs campaign ads for the GOP.

        Meanwhile in left center we have NYT, WAPO, and BBC.

          • @Maggoty
            link
            34 months ago

            I see how that happened. If you check down thread though you’ll see I would rate a campaign organization for the GOP as right, not far right.

        • Dramatic Shitposter
          link
          fedilink
          -314 months ago

          You can check the categories on the MBFC website yourself but a couple choice picks in the “right center” category are the Ayn Rand Institute, advocates for self governance, and American Action Network.

          The first two are libertarian and pro Anarcho Capitalism. The second one attempts to masquerade as a non political education tool about politics. And third is a partisan group that runs campaign ads for the GOP.

          Meanwhile in left center we have NYT, WAPO, and BBC.

          Looking through all the sources you mentioned, especially the center-right sources, the ratings tend to be accurate. Did you expect the center right sources to be rated as far right and the center left sources to be rated as right wing?

          • @Maggoty
            link
            334 months ago

            I expect the fact based objective sources to be rated as center/not biased. And sources calling for a complete destruction of liberal democracy to be far right, yes. The campaign site should be listed under Right as it’s transparently a partisan organization.

            The comparison with leftists here would be if they listed Anarcho-Communists as “left center”. But then your response tells me everything I need to know. You’ve gone right into exaggerated rhetoric meant to paint me as someone from the far left.

            • Dramatic Shitposter
              link
              fedilink
              -26
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              You’ve gone right into exaggerated rhetoric meant to paint me as someone from the far left.

              Your response tell me everything I need to know, that you’re the average far left Lemming that sees everyone you disagree with as a far right incel.