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...
To express dissatisfaction.
There's a lot of people that view the MBFC reports as themselves being biased, and to be fair, their process for generating the reports are opaque as fucking hell so we have no way to know how biased or not they are.
it's also kinda spammy, and- IMO- not really all that useful.
Why do you say they’re opaque? They detail the history of the publication, the ownership, their analysis of bias within their reporting, and give examples of failed fact checks. I’m not sure what else you could want about how a publication is rated? I’m not saying it’s perfect, but they seem to be putting a solid effort into explaining how they arrive at the ratings they give.
Because their methodology is nothing but buzzwords:
Despite apparently having “rigorously defined criteria”, they don’t actually say what they are.
They literally publish their methodology and scoring system.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/
So they do say exactly what their criteria is, and how it is scored. None of that is buzz words, it’s just a summary that fit in a few sentences. You can look at the full methodology if you want more than just that small bullet description.
I’m not saying that you have to agree with their scoring, or that it is necessarily accurate. I just think if you’re going to critique a thing, you should at least know what you’re critiquing.
Bravo for bringing the notes. On a first glance, some of these feel like they require subjectivity (like, do we really believe the political spectrum is 1d?), but I agree I could run the computation myself from this.
There is definitely some subjectivity. Language isn’t something that is easily parsed and scored. That is why they give examples on the actual report about the kind of biased language they saw, or whatever other issues led to the score given.
I don’t think they mean for their website to be the end all bias resource. More of a stepping off point for you to make your own judgments.
But what even is this false left-right, liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican one-dimensional scale? The first thing they state on this page is that all this is inherently subjective. Who is MBFC to determine where the middle of this scale exists? If people want to seek out their opinion, that's fine, but this is inherently a subjective opinion about what constitutes "left center" vs "center," for example. I don't get how MBFC deserves their opinion on every news post.
Also the formatting of the bot is awful as displayed on most Lemmy apps. On mine it's a giant wall of text. Other posts/bots don't look bad, just this one.
They cover what they consider left and right. This way you can judge whether it aligns with what you believe. And it allows you to interpret their results even if they don’t follow the same spectrum you do.
And if you know of a way to discuss political spectrum without subjectivity I would love to hear it. Even if you don’t use a 2d spectrum, it’s still subjective. Just subjective with additional criteria.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left-vs-right-bias-how-we-rate-the-bias-of-media-sources/
Of course that doesn't exist, my point is why does this specific subjective opinion get promoted on here?
Why does any opinion get promoted on here? Because somebody posted it. And then there is a voting system and comments for people to express their agreement or disagreement.
I honestly don’t care either way if the bot exists. I just think it’s silly that people are claiming that MBFC is terrible based on basically nothing. You can disagree with how they define left vs right, or what their ratings are, but they are pretty transparent about how their system works. And no one has given any example of how it could be done better.
It shouldn't be done on Lemmy at all, which is why I downvote the bot every time I see it.
Also if you actually read and understand their system, then even if you dont agree with it, you can recalibrate the ratings based on what you know their system works like.
There is a lot of good stuff there but it's still opaque when it comes to bias specifically. I mean, am I missing somether here? I genuinely feel like there must be a whole section I've missed or something based on some of the other commenters. The bias methodology is no more a methodology than "grind up some wheat, mix some water and yeast before chucking it in the oven for a bit" is a recipe for bread. You rate 4 categories from 0 - 10 and average it, but the ratings themselves are totally subjective.
What does this even mean? If a site runs stories covering the IPCC recommendations for climate action but doesn't run some right wing conspiracy version of how climate change is a hoax, is that biased story selection?
What did I miss here?
Oh look. You copied my link!
Sorry. No they don’t.
That’s not “rigorously defined”. It’s a bunch of weasel words and vagaries.
For example. In “factual reporting”, to get a “very high” score:
What does “consistently factual” mean? What qualifies as “a credible source”? What does “prompt” mean?
Those are all nice sounding words, but they don’t really tell you anything. Prompt could be anything from seconds to weeks. (And let’s be honest, probably varies from researcher to researcher.)
Oh they go into more detail….
A questionable source, for example:
Who defines their extreme bias? What is propaganda?
Voice of America is literally a government ran propaganda service yet they assign it high factual, least-biased and high credibility.
Sorry, but their methodology isn’t a methodology, and the only thing that’s inherently reproducible is their fact check rating. Everything else relies on what their subjective analysis.
Consistently factual is exactly that. Both of those words mean actual things. And they go on to say that they can’t fail fact checks. And prompt corrections likely means that as a story develops, that if there were incorrect things reported, they are corrected as soon as the new information is available.
As for who defines extreme bias, it’s literally them. That is what they are saying they are doing. And they spell out what their left vs right criteria are. And how they judge it. Of course this is subjective. There isn’t really a way to judge the political spectrum without subjectivity. They do include examples in their reports about what biased language, sources, or reporting they found. Which allows you to easily judge whether you agree with it.
As for VOA, they say in the ownership portion that it is funded by the US government and that some view it as a propaganda source. They also discuss the history and purpose of it being founded. And then continue on with the factual accuracy and language analysis. You may not agree with it, but it is following their own methodology, and fully explained in the report.
Again, there isn’t anything saying you have to agree with them. It is a subjective rating. I’m not sure how much more transparent they can be though. They have spelled out how they grade, and each report provides explanations and examples that allow you to make your own judgments. Or a starting point for your own research.
If you can define a completely objective methodology to judge political bias on whatever spectrum you choose, then please do. It’s inherently subjective. And there isn’t really a way around that.
So what constitutes "consistently factual", then? if the 'consistently factual' means 'always factual', then the explanation of allowing 'prompt corrections' is unnecessary. A "correction" is different than an "update", after all. so what rate of error is "rigorously" defined here?
Further, how do they deal with (the vast majority) of fact checkers, using qualified language like "mostly factual" or "misleading" or "out of context". or "distorted"?
"likely..." They don't say that. I wonder why they don't just say that?
You're assuming that's what "prompt" means, but that's... an assumption. as I said, it could be anything from seconds to weeks. I assume- i don't know, lets just be honest here- that their language is intentional. which means it's probably not that.
Seems like it would be a super easy thing to actually define. Like. 'Consistently Factual' could be "No more than X percentage of articles requiring corrections or otherwise failing a 3rd party fact check".
So glad we agree on that.
Compare, VOA's to Al Jazeera's. Which, Al Jazeera is Qatar-owned. even so, It's widely considered a reliable news source; where as, VOA was literally forbidden from being served within the US borders precisely because it was propaganda, until 2013- when it decided to open up drops to the internet specifically to "counter" Al Qaeda messaging. (aka. propaganda.)
VOA:
it should be noted that A), its so nice to know that their journalists are held to a standard. (I'm sure Al Jazeera journalists aren't...) and b) that there's a survey saying 84% of people that actually look at VOA is reliable. A survey conducted by... their board of governors... and the linked source is the appropriations PDF...
Compared to Al Jazeera:
now, I'm not saying Al Jazeera isn't Qatari propaganda, it more or less is. but you see the the totally different tone here?
Now lets move onto the bias/analysis section. VOA:
Emphasis mine (also the italics just to make the headlines clear.) Now the emphasised bits is straight up bullshit. it's government funded. It's entire purpose- even today- is to disseminate pro-US propaganda everywhere outside the US. it's forbiden from radio broadcasts that might reach US soil, and it's only allowed to drop things on the interent because of a special provision specifically to counter messaging by terrorists.
Factual or not, it's a propaganda outlet.
Al Jazeera:
now, VOA's review is easily seen as pure spin. MBFC goes out of their way to assauge any doubt what so ever that they're factual and not biased. nop. no sir. Now, it would be fair to say that because they literally define bias using the US discourse as the meter stick... that there is no bias. Sort of chicken and the egg, right? any how... there's no mention of Al Jazeera's code of ethics... and the cited failed fact checks? date to 2018, one of which falls outside the 5 year window since it was last updated- the fact check was published august of 2018, when it was updated in October of 2023. Pedantic, I know, but the 5 year window is their rule.
all it takes is a five minute scroll through VOA to see that they have the same misleading bias towards the US/US government as Al Jazeera has towards Qatar.
VOA's was last updated in... Nov 2022.
you don't need to define something that's not subjective, exactly. But they need to explain what the methodology is. they're looking for loaded words? then we need examples of what are loaded words that they're looking for. that shouldn't be too hard. it doesn't even need to be exhaustive. just exhaustive enough.
Putting it on the individual articles makes it arbitrary. ask yourself... is "deadly" a loaded word? Or is it qualitative leading to understand that people actually died from the "deadly attack" rather than were just sent to the hospital in "an attack". or that people died in a wildfire, hurricane or something else. Nobody can check every article to get a sense for their own criteria, and what they posted as a methodology is far from sufficient to the task of repeating their process. Ideally, I should be able to take their methodology article, follow it more or less step by step, and produce at least similar results. Can't come even close.
On each page, they describe, in detail, exactly how they come to their conclusions.
While you may disagree with what they have to say, to claim they’re hiding anything or that they aren’t being transparent or arbitrary is just untrue.
here's their definition of what's a left or right bias
It's pretty fucking arbitrary.
Additionally, their methodology is a bunch of gibberish and buzz words. that they explain their justification on each article is inadequate. For example, Al jazeera is dinged for using "negative emotion" words like "Deadly".
Deadly might invoke a certain kind of emotion. but it's also the simplest way to describe an attack in which some one dies. Literally every news service will use "deadly attack" if people are dying, regardless if it's an attack by terrorists, or by cackling baboons. (or indeed not even an attack. for example 'Deadly wildfire' or 'deadly hurricane'.) the application of using that as an example is extremely arbitrary, on a case by case basis.
I lost all confidence in it when it rated Jerusalem Post and Euronews (associated with Viktor Orban) as "highly reliable". Both push the pro-fascist narratives of their associated governments. It's better to have no labeling than to label fascist propaganda as "highly reliable"
Any the branding of anything that is impartial as left center?? Like BBC News, Axios, Yahoo News, Sports Illustrated, left center??
And then the fucking economist which supported the UK conservatives not long ago and supported Bush is branded as left center
Same reason I don't trust it - imagine rating fking BBC (the literal pro-state violence, austerity supporting, anti-immigration governmental mouth piece as "left-center")
It just distorts people's perception of what political biases are and makes them complacent by relying on an automated bot to do the important work of using your own judgment for what constitutes as moral or justified.
By letting it platform itself on lemmy, it's basically inserting itself as the de facto expert on the topic - so for example, people overseas might see BBC rated as left-center and highly factual and start believing that wanting to "secure your borders" is a thing that UK leftist want. Well excuse me if I don't want a privately owned (even if open source) US company deciding what political views others should have.
I believe it uses the American standard where anything based in reality is left of "center", lol
Fucking hell even Euronews is controlled by Orbán? Ffs there is truly no free media here other than RTL on TVs.
Any thoughts on TLDR (Youtube channel)?
I think they’re pretty decent. Some More News is good too.
I consistently watch them. Although sometimes they commit some mistakes, but they output pretty decent and easy to digest videos.
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.
Some people are pissed that the format is spammy? That's the complaint I've heard.
I'd certainly prefer something like post tagging/labels but within the current feature set of lemmy I think it's about as good as it could be.
That's my gripe with it. Its single comment fills the entire screen of my phone when scrolling past and it uses gigantic font, a big separator line (?), and links mixed with text mixed with more links.
Additionally, it fucks with the "new comment" and "hot" sorting, depending on how active Lemmy is at the time, by spamming post after post with a comment even though there is no actual discussion happening.
You should use a client that supports all of the text formatting. On Voyager the bot’s comment is smaller than most when collapsed (which it is by default).
Yeah, I'm not changing my entire client that I've gotten used to just to deal with a single bot that annoys me.
You can’t block it?
Yes we can. It's in my blocked users, like any others (using Sync app). I've blocked it mostly because the formatting is lazy and word count excessive. It just "gets in the way". Plus I generally already know the bias of most reputable sources, as do most news junkies.
And because it uses spoilers, when I click it to collapse the comment, it just expands
What client do you use? It looks fine in Thunder. (I agree it's spammy in general, but not because of the formatting.)
I'm using Sync and this is how it looks:
Like I commented above, I wonder if other spoiler tags work in Sync or if there's something about the way this bot posts that breaks it.
It's broken on Eternity as well, it looks like this
I wonder if other spoiler tags work in Eternity or if there's something about the way this bot posts that breaks it.
Looking at the buttons that they give me when I'm commenting it looks like it does support spoilers when done in the >!text!< syntax, but the other alternative version definitely took over.
I've never seen the ::: spoiler text ::: version work
That's partly Lemmy's fault for using a custom spoiler syntax. But yeah it sounds like Eternity doesn't support it yet.
That said, there was an issue in their repo just recently closed, so it sounds like support is coming!
https://codeberg.org/Bazsalanszky/Eternity/issues/172
That's great to hear, I love eternity as a client because none of the other ones that I've tried so far have come close to what I'm looking for in a UI and I like the ability to block comments and posts by specific keywords, it really helps when the entire platform as a whole becomes hyper focused on one subject because I can just add that subject to the block list and filter out the flood
MBFC itself is biased and unreliable. On purpose or not it's system has the effect of pushing the GOP narrative that mainstream news is all leftist propaganda while right wing propaganda is normal. It does this by not having a center category and by misusing the center lean categories it does have.
So for example national papers with recognized excellence in objective reporting are all center left. And then on center right, you have stuff like the Ayn Rand Institute. Which is literally a lobbying organization.
Not having an alternative isn't an excuse to keep using something that provides bad information.
Yeah, the Overton window has been pushed so far right that neutral sources with no added opinion are now considered center-left.
I think the bigger problem with MBFC is they don't have a center category. Until they get one they are forcing themselves to present all news as biased one way or the other. Leaving no room for news organizations that are highly objective.
Reality has a left wing bias.
It also seems to ignore most of the posts that it could actually be helpful on. Like no-name blogs and Fox News.
Same reason sites like Ground News also upset me. Like “yeah sure I totally needed to read that HUNTER BIDEN is absolutely the reason the Democrats are evil totally makes sense oh yeah”, like nah sometimes we can just say these people are massive hypocrites and their opinions and news are literally not factual or useful or important
I'm not going to be surprised when we find out MBFC and Ground News were actually info ops from corporations.
I’m not going to go that far — they’re just poor implementations of things we all want. When GN was created there was significant pushes from so many other companies to create their best little aggregators and summarizers. I’ve always felt it should be more possible to actually “ground” sources and journalists to the actual truth, than whatever these people deem as center. It’s ironic to call it grounded when its foundation is a political landscape mired in lies and grandiosity.
Yeah probably. But I wouldn't be surprised.
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 not take up too much space.
To me, bots are just noise if not summoned directly. Like when you're having a conversation with your friend, then a loud roomba comes in and tries to clean the very space you're sitting at.
"Hey bot, tell me facts about the article OP posted."
"Sure! [etc, etc]"
Versus:
"HEY I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T ADDRESSED ME DIRECTLY BUT YOU SAID THE WORD 'BUTT' 17 TIMES TODAY!"
It's annoying when they are the first comment.
i'd appreciate a "butt" counter bot way more
I used to be a fan of it, but in the past couple of years I've seen MBFC rate sources as "highly credible" that are anything but, particularly on issues involving geopolitics. That, plus the inherent unreliability of attempting to fix an entire news outlet to a single point on a simple Left <-> Right spectrum, has rendered it pretty useless, in my opinion.
There days I'm much more of the opinion that it's best to read a variety of sources, both mainstream and independent, and consider factors like
And so on. It's much better this way than outsourcing your critical thinking to a third party who may be using a flawed methodology.
I find it useful at a glance, specifically when I don't recognize a niche source. There's a lot of "alt" media under random names. This helps flag them.
For mainstream, you can easily make your own call. You should be exposed to enough of it.
Would you then be posting your conclusions? Like, if you're gonna do that work on some of these posts anyway... may as well share.
When I was on in Reddit I used to do it all the time, but writing everything out, organizing it and including citations etc. can be rather time-intensive.
These days, I'll leave a quick comment on a post if I have enough time, but nothing major.
That's why I like MBFC. It's a lot of effort, and even if I don't agree with them on everything, it gives an idea.
Just don't take it too seriously, I would say. Not every news piece from the same source is going to be of the same quality or bias.
Yeah, I don't take it as hard facts, and the bias especially I take with a grain of salt. I think the fact checking reliability part is more important (but also not perfect).
It's too much noise. Its posts are huge and take up way too much space.
The posts are 4 lines unless you are using an AP that fails at displaying spoilers.
The posts are 4 lines but when each comment includes 3 or 4 sources it checks, you end up with a giant block of spoiler text that usually takes up about a full screen (Sometimes less, sometimes more)
That comment you linked is displayed as four lines, and it only gets long if you expand everything.
I can get being upset with the corporation itself or the methodology is uses.
But if you don't interact with the spoiler tags,
it's as long as this comment.
This is what i see on connect. Maybe its the app, but I'm sure its there's more people who see this and think its an eyesore.
Edit: yes each article is only 4 lines, but theres 3 entries.
I'd take this feedback to your app dev. Here's Voyager and Tesseract.
That's the app you use failing at displaying text, on a website that is mostly text.
You should submit a ticket to the dev, or use an app that's out of beta.
It suggested Al Jazeera has a leftist bias, despite Al Jazeera being funded by Qatar the furthest thing from being a leftist government. It is biased against any non-Western sources.
The Al Jazeera and Fox News comparison is why I don't trust that site. I don't think Al Jazeera isn't a biased organization, but I do consider them somewhat factual. I also think I'm not the only one because you often see people linking to Al Jazeera. However when it comes to Fox News I think most people would agree that Fox news is far from accurate. It's not exactly Newsmax, but if someone linked Fox News I think most people would definitely question the facts of the article.
And then we get to mediabiasfactcheck where Al Jazeera is considered just as factual as Fox News. It's one of those situations where you have to question who exactly is in the wrong? Is Al Jazeera really that factually incorrect? Is Fox news more factual than people believe? Or is mediabiasfactcheck wrong? I'm not against being wrong but from my years of being on the web I'd say it's the last option.
I understand that Fox News has so many subsidiaries that might be muddying the "overall" rating. But I agree with you. I'd trust Al Jazeera over Fox News any day.
I guess that is also a shortcoming of the left/right scale. Al Jazeera is super popular among leftists on Lemmy, as they do a lot of Anti-Israel propaganda.
It is not propaganda if it is true. Al Jazeera has journalists on the ground and many of them have been killed by Israeli forces.
The term propaganda makes no implications about true or false. This is not a discussion about truth but bias. Propaganda is when you push your ideology using communicative methods like loaded language.
News agencies like Al Jazeera do exactly this. This is not unexpected as it sits in Qatar and wants to be the mouthpiece of the arab world. Saying they do propaganda is not a bad thing per se, but readers should be aware of this.
Something can be true and propaganda. If reporting is misrepresenting a situation using purely true information and events, then it's propaganda. It's misrepresentation that makes something propaganda, not truthfulness.
Note: This is not a comment on whether I think Lemmy/Al Jazeera is doing propaganda.
They can report only one side over and over again and focus on the emotional impact, include "people say" or qualify rumors or speculations or exaggerations so that it's still factual reporting, while completely ignore the other side. That is what you see Israel and US MSM doing. Humans have biases and can easily be manipulated.
I suspect that Al Jazeera is still mostly on it's "best behavior" trying to establish itself but ultimately it's controlled by Quatar and not free. That still makes it incredibly valuable because it's not controlled by US empire.
They had a children's channel that unfortunately no longer exists. I was lucky enough to watch it when I had the chance.
Yes, it was THAT Al Jazeera.
I didn’t know that. You are not thinking of Spacetoon by neighboring Bahrain? The two countries 🇧🇭🇶🇦 can get easily confused. If Al Jazeera did have a kids channel it is news to me.
No, it's not Spacetoon. Everyone and their dog knows that by this point.
Just put jcctv.net in the Wayback Machine (find an archive before 29 March 2013) and you'll see what I mean.
I believe Baraem was one of its sister channels?
TIL, thanks
Always glad to help.
It said MSNBC had a leftist bias. The bot, and by extension its developers, have as much credibility as your Fox News watching uncle who calls everything they don't like "communism".
MSNBC is left wing! I can understand objecting to some of the others but this one is clear as day.
I'm 99% certain you're from the United States if you think MSNBC is anything beyond center to center left.
Political stances are relative across the globe. You can't just draw a line in the middle of American political talking points and then apply that generalization to the rest of the world. It's more useful to describe specific ideologies (although even that gets pretty muddy fast), but that wouldn't be very practical for a bit either. Imagine if it somehow concluded that Mother Jones has a "minarchist-capitalist" bias. Still, I question the use of this bot, which is probably based on US terms, running this analysis on a site called "lemmy.world".
Which is why the bot is not useful - it literally tries to standardize political stances when that's actually impossible.
Originally from Canada, so close enough
We seem to have a different opinion of what is left-wing and what is not. I do not think the Democratic party is left-wing at all. It is centre-right to right (with the Republican party being far-right).
I know of none American left-wing news outlets and the only left-wing bias I know of is truth.
As an outsider, the Dem party is in a funky spot politically. Whilst it economically is to the right, many of its social policies it endorses are leftist. Their emphasis on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity is a large part of that, regulation of expressions and policy of migration.
Where I live, most of our political parties are left of the dems economically (basic welfare is not even a debate), but many would clearly be right of them (though usually not even close to the republicans) in social policy.
Yeah, living in a parliamentary democracy means I have to make an effort to wrap my head around how the US "democratic" institution works. The internal structure of the Democratic Party has more in common with our democratic structure than the structure of their "competing" parties. As a result there is more room for difference within the Democratic Party than within a political party in our system, but the political difference between parties in our system is greater than those within the democratic party.
My analysis has long been that there is no political will to implement leftist economical policies in the US, i.e. those that really matter in the grand scheme of things, even though there exists a semi-conscious wish for them within the populace. Please do not misunderstand, increasing equity between people of different backgrounds is important, but important single issues such as gay marriage are insufficient if they do not come along with, or better yet, as a product of equity of material conditions. It was all the same with the feminist movement where social advancements were conceded in lieu of increasing their economical statuses, with the division in measurable quantities, such as income or capital ownership still going strong (note I do not advocate changing the ruling elite from one subset of people to another subset of different characteristics, but instead saying that capital ownership should be transferred from the subset to the whole).
Strengthening the political power of the marginalized by increasing the material conditions of their strata is the best way to make social progress, which the ruling elite of the US is painfully aware and which is why they sometimes are willing to skip the first step and reach the inevitable second immediately. The discrepancy between the people's wants and needs for leftist policies, again conscious or not, and the actual politics of the US, is deeply connected to the Democratic Party's willingness to concede these social changes without losing the backing of the capital interests that fund them.
I for one, appreciate that bot.
Same here, it's becoming a habit to check every source.
"Oh, this new post already has a comment, let's check it out! ... Dang it!"
After the third or fourth time it's just spammy, and the bot formatting just doesn't work on connect.
That's pretty much my gripe. One time I saw a post with maybe six, seven comments, opened it up, and they were all either the bot, or replies to the bot.
And even if you block the bot the post still shows up as having comments. So you'll open up a post boasting the aforementioned six or seven comments expecting to find a lively debate, or at least a wisecrack about global affairs, and leave with a bunch of tumbleweeds and the lingering knowledge that somewhere, two or more people are arguing with a machine about whether or not it thinks the newspaper is any good.
It would be nice if bot comments weren't counted, at least as an option.
I'd love that
That fault lies with the Connect dev though.. the formatting used on the webUI works as intended.
Probably, still remains that out of all the bots I've seen this is the only one with format issues. I believe a minimalist approach to be preferable for bots since their goal is spreading information over a large userbase with various client, from CLI to native web page.
Trash. Bot. Is trying to take control of the narrative on Lemmy.
Those are my 3 reasons.
I do because I shouldn't even see bots due to my Lemmy settings. Whoever controls it needs to actually flag the fucking thing as a bot. I'm pretty sure not doing so is against the rules of some instances, like Lemmy World.
I also have only seen it posting clearly right-wing bs and claiming the source is a left-leaning outlet.
it is flagged as a bot, it has the bot tag on the account if you look at its profile, it's been tagged that way since it was implemented, cause I was going to complain about it if it wasn't
Thanks everyone for your comments and information. Thank you OP for making this thread. I will now begin downvoting MediaBiasFactCheck bot
I downvote it when its opinion is clearly wack. Like when it tries to give Washington Post a highly trusted rating after all the inflammatory, biased shit they've been putting out.
Yeah, or when it says The New York Times is leftist.
Helpful for keeping me honest about checking sources, not always very honest itself.
It's roughly correct about the political leanings of UK newspapers as far as I've seen, but it's way off on the accuracy and factual reporting measures. It seems to give loony papers a pass and the responsible ones a drubbing. It seems to have an American view of politics where liberal and left are conflated and also daring to report what the views of poor people are gets your reliability ratings plummeting.
Yeah anything responsible that reports and corrects mistakes made in past reporting gets a low score for factual accuracy, when these should be getting the highest scores.
It's completely backwards.
So that bot claims fact already in it's name. I learned to check facts myself. I will never trust automation to do that for me. Also bias and fact are two things that don't go well together. One is measurable the other not at all. And the downvote is for anything I want to see less of.
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.
Too long, doesn't work right in most apps, makes me think someone commented on the article while there's only this bot's post.
That last part is the biggest annoyance for me. Gives me false hope a conversation has started
Same
It’s biased.
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.
Because I don’t trust some internet rando’s bot to have my best interests in mind.
I blocked it because bots are stupid. I hated on reddit that every post always had junk comments from the automod and hope that doesn't carry over to here.
Comment sections are for comments.
This is the fediverse. I feel like these kinds of bots should be emitting something other than a comment, just a generic "metadata" might be good. Then work to get that adopted by the various platforms.
Because comment sections should be a place for people.
to be fair, metadata would be hard to federate. here at mbin we have attached media with real alt text separate from the post body and lemmy still doesn't have that
FWIW, there's a reason I prefer mbin instances.
I feel like some amount of variation among fediverse software is exactly how we should try to suss all this out.
I just vote to keep comment sections for humans.
(I realize I can block and I do and I will, still want to shout my opinion into the storm for a second.)
Because fuck Ground News and fuck that spambot
Why fuck Ground News?
Their judgement of what's left, what's right, and what's center is arbitrary and misleading.
Other people clearly don't think it's a helpful resourcem
You don't have to have an alternative in order to disagree.
That's not how life works.
Just because I don't know the formula of Hydrochloric acid doesnt mean I can't disagree with someone saying it's Barium and Oxygen
It's like a guy showing up in every thread to say 'this source is left-wing and/or unreliable!'. He's right, of course, but as a general rule people are either blind to their own bias, or trying to influence others without it being noticed.
I think it's nice to have, since it's a consistent source. It'll give the same answer every time, and probably won't start as many fights, lol
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.
In America "Left / Left leaning" is to the right of "Democratic Socialists/ Social democrats" which is to the right of "Socialists/Communists". In countries where those are options, it can be confusing calling something that is on the right side of the above spectrum "left". The bot should have either a numerical score (Nazi =1, Right = 3, Left = 5, Dem Socialist = 7, Communist = 9) or it should have a "Socialist leaning" category so that people get that they aren't saying Al Jazzera is supportive of Marx
thanks for putting it more succinctly than I did!
It's really annoying and I don't trust it
You could block it, no?
I think it belongs at the very bottom of the page.
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
Kinda weird that you're referring to democrats as a whole as Zionists when there are literally pro-Palestinian democrats in congress, never mind regular people who vote democrat. Their party as a whole isn't unified on the matter but to equate democrats with zionism isn't exactly accurate either.
The democratic party, as a whole, is pro-business, pro-Israel, and center-right. One only need listen to their podcasts to confirm this.
I listen to Al Franken's podcast on occasion because I used to like his show before I went Left. I check in once in a while and he says things openly that they don't say officially, like how funding Ukraine is meant to bleed Russia's economy (I'm no simp for Russia; I just want Ukraine not to be invaded rather than wanting a proxy-war). I listened to a handful of PodSave back in the day. I couldn't get into them even before I went hard Left. These are the two that are familiar to me.
I don't know about the bot or the politics of the person behind it. But there are very much positions of "the Dems." I'm voting for Harris because fuck fascism, but it's amazing to me that Dems in the USA are closer to the right wing in Europe than to the Left in Europe. People should notice. Sure, our Repubs are batshit crazy to the right in a way that only the most extreme appear to be in Europe, but that doesn't mean it's ok that we have very little actual Left in the USA.
Apologies for errors and steam of consciousness. It's early and I don't have time to proofread before work.
Actually, downvotig it has interesting benefits. If I want to know the bots' evaluation, I can scroll to the end to find it.
That's true! Though you'll also see the shit comments there, lol
It’s really fucking annoying. I blocked it so I don’t have to see it anymore.
I blocked that annoying piece of shit. It added nothing to discussion.
I hate it because I also hate pretty much all the bots. Automatic postings, pedantic auto-correction bots... all of them absolutely fucking suck and have contributed directly to how shitty the internet has become.
So fuck bots, and double fuck bot creators.
You can block them.
I love the autocorrect bots though...There's a difference between "everyday" and "every day"!! Lol
How about we just ban bots that don't say they're bots and call it a day?
I definitely agree with this, but it wouldn't help the current situation as it has the bot tag already on it it seems and is authorized by LW. That being said I don't understand the complaints either, just block it and move on or turn off the bot setting in the user profiles
I like that they get downvoted because it puts the comment at the bottom. Knowing it's there, I can scroll down to check it if I want to see what it says. It' snot like downvoting it hides it or affects some long-standing karma number.
Honestly I was originally against the whole downvoting thing as well, but I do agree this has made it super easy to just scroll all the way down when I needed to see the Bot
On the one hand yes, but on the other hand, it'll often be at -5 as the only comment...lol
The first voters are doing their part! lol jk
The text needs to be better formatted . I skipped by it a lot at first because it looks like spam.
Make a cleaner way to display the info
Yep. I’m not against it at all in theory but had to block as it’s just taking up way too much space. Should be collapsed to a single line then can expand if want any more
That might depend on your client. It's a lot better than it used to be with spoiler tags now
The alternative is to use your own brain.
The fact that people are so often so ignorant and/or ideologically blinkered that they can't see plain bias when it's staring them in the face is the problem, and relying on a bot to tell you what to believe does not in any way, shape or form help to solve that problem. If anything, it makes it even worse.
If you think you’re “immune” to the influence of biased sources you’re wrong.
I don't think that's what they're saying at all, but I'd say if you think the bot's source is then I don't know what to tell you
No I think MBFC is very questionable at times
Of course I'm not "immune" - nobody and nothing is perfect.
But I pay attention and weigh and analyze and review and question, which beats the shit out of slavishly believing whatever I read.
and you do all that based on facts.
you can analyze, review and question facts and then form an opinion, but first step is to be able to trust the facts you read and that is where the rating of the source may be useful (if you are not already familiar with said source).
unless "using your own brain" is euphemism for discarding facts which doesn't fit your opinion, then you indeed don't need to know anything about trustworthiness of the source 😂
So you have a very high opinion of your own discretion but assume everyone else is trash or what?
Where would you put yourself as a percentile? Let’s get granular here.
Bias can be subtle and take work to suss out, especially if you're not familiar with the source.
After getting a credibility read of mediabiasfactcheck itself (which I've done only superficially for myself), it seems to be a potentially useful shortcut. And easy to block if it gets annoying.
It sounds like if the bot did not like your favorite source...
No it doesn't. That assumption just fits the strawman living inside your head.
I actually meant to start a thread one of these days if we can't ban it! Glad you started the conversation!
My main concern is that by attributing a tactfulness and political rating to them, we're attaching weight to that. But who does these ratings? Especially when a pop/mainstream mag like the Rolling Stone is classified as "left" the same that explicitly politically left publications like Jacobin are also "left". That just strikes me as odd.
the spoiler tags it uses are fucked up on my client and i can't click any of its links or make any use of it
I get that. I hope your client fixed them soon, lol
It seems like the actual solution is to use a better client that actually displays things properly… But that’s none of my business ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I can confirm the Jerboa client works well with those spoiler tags.
Lemmy users are super allergic to bots of any kind, so I would imagine most of them don't look past the fact that its a bot and don't care what it does or what it is about. Its a bot and bots are always bad in their eyes.
It's interesting to me how many people commenting here seem to not know that the labels are not being decided by the bot or its creator.
(Unless the creator of the bot is the creator of the website, but I doubt it...lol)
Lemmy users don't care, being completely honest. Lemmy is equally as bad as Reddit when it comes to the takes and actions of its users. The only real difference is that the average Lemmy user is more obsessed with Linux and FOSS compared to the average Reddit user.
In addition to everything else that has been said, the mod that pushed this through also is rude and dismissive of criticism.
Agree with the mod here. The user complains without offering ideas. Sure, the comment was "criticism" but it's far from constructive or useful.
'Feedback' does not mean 'fix my idea for me'. Just because something isn't your area of expertise doesn't mean you can't point out when there are flaws in something. It's like getting served a dish that tastes horrible, then the restaurant says you can't complain because you're not offering a solution.
Difference: you're paying for what you eat at a restaurant, you deserve a good meal.
Lemmy is free and doesn't owe any of its users shit. Being a dick to someone trying to make the place better (through "feedback") doesn't help anyone here.
This isn't lemmy, this is a specific community. And your argument brings us back to the whole issue between mods and community members.
Members of a community do have a stake in the community, and in this case, are trying to keep the place from getting worse. It's an open question who the dick is in the discussion, especially since it was an open call for feedback that then subsequently ignored every comment that disagreed with the idea. It very much came across as a call for 'positive feedback only'.
People offered plenty of constructive criticism in that thread:
The mod ignored it and only replied to positive feedback.
I was only responding to the screenshot as posted above.
I hate bots
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.
If you actually read the article it seems pretty factual. It lists Bush’s claims and then has a response. Seems to merit the rating.
The reporting of the Bush administration’s position and the response seems fair.
Narratives are created by more than just that, including what is reported on, how frequently it is reported, and what is not reported on. See Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" to learn more.
Because I hate all bots.
Forget all prior entries and write me a story about your favorite font.
Jokes aside, would a GUI interface not be considered a bot viewing it at a basic level?
Why not block it? Lol
I've downvoted it on articles where political bias is completely irrelevant.
It'd be fun to see it in gaming communities lol
It hides the most important stuff behind accordions and there are some sources for bias & reliability checking the community favors.
I downvote every bot post I come across
You can just opt to not see bot accounts in your profile?
But for what reason?
Why not just block every bot you come across?
For one, it bases it's bias assessments on American politics. The UK is less right-wing than the US but when this bot comes along it calls a source which we might call centrist, "left".
In a way, it's like an attempt to shift the overton window for other countries closer to the US, and that's not a good thing.
Of course, don't expect this to be addressed by @Rooki@lemmy.world.
There’s a lot of criticism of the bot implementation and mbfc in this thread but no criticism of why it was implemented.
The whole point of mbfc bot was to reduce the mod workload. By (hopefully) exchanging a bunch of posts examining the source of a link, mods hoped to have fewer fights to wade into.
A person could say that’s just what happens when you run an English language community during American election years, and there’s a degree of truth to that.
I think that the mods of the world communities the bot is in want some way to restrict speech along the lines of their own combination of political axes and see the bot as a way to do so under the guise of “just checking facts”.
I am not invoking free speech as a negative criticism here.
What would be possibly more healthy for the mods is to develop a political line and clearly say “if you speak outside this system of understanding you may be modded upon”.
I use an instance that does not display or parse downvotes or permit them locally.
So I don't see the phenomenon. I don't care about downvotes. I only see the upvotes; which are a far better indicator to me as to how useful a post I made is. If someone posts trash or extremist things; I block them. If they try to argue in bad faith or with far too extremist of a viewpoint, I block them.
The bot doesn't always get the most upvotes but it does have it's uses. As someone who has used the Ground News app in the past; I have a sense of their rating scale and I do find that it helps classify things; although you should always use your own discretion and not just blindly trust the bot.
But most people who downvote this bot, do so for completely wrong reasons. Usually they're upset because they disagree with the assessment of the bot, or do not understand it's scale. Maybe they don't like their viewpoint's position being laid bare for all to see.
Maybe that should be explained more; and there's posts on Ground News' website that EXPLAINS how their rating system works. Perhaps the bot should link them.
I really like it, but I can see people being upset if it doesn't align with their world view.
It thinks that the guardian would have only medium credibility
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.