Why are people downvoting the MediaBiasFactChecker bot?
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...
You are viewing a single comment
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.
Good summary. I think the first point is the most concerning because it's actively spreading misinformation and giving the appearance of credibility.
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.
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.
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.