No comments or anything, just lots of Downvotes.
Maybe because manh people think it’s useless and stupid and wish it would go away. Trusting a random bot to tell you the political leaning of an information source so you know whether to trust the information is peak stupidity, IMO.
For me it’s because the bias rating specifically is opaque and can be just plain wrong.
I could block it but if everyone who thought it was a bad idea just blocked it then it wouldn’t get downvoted which might lead people to think everyone generally agreed with it.
At least when it’s downvoted people take a step back and are less likely to just accept what it says.
EDIT: Also worth pointing out in my case at least I did go to the effort of actually trying to provide some constructive feedback on the bot through the proper channels rather than just downvoting and moving on.
Have you asked yourself who runs the bot and what their bias is?
-
It’s often wrong
-
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.
I have it blocked so I didn’t notice that it slides past the bot filter. That is interesting, but blocking it works.
I might unblock it just to downvote it tbh.
-
Many on lemmy don’t like non-emotional driven facts because it makes it harder for them to manufacture the outrage.
The atomic unit of propaganda isn’t lies, it’s emphasis. It’s quite easy to manufacture outrage without lying if you can pick which facts the consumer sees and how they’re contextualized.
Here’s a PDF of Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent.
You’ve ironically demonstrated the need for a bias checking bot. People will cite biased sources without contextualizing things like that Chomsky has a notable left leaning.
Says an attempt to manufacture outrage.
Yeah, that’s the person’s usual mo in any thread
Personally my biggest gripe is with the formatting, specifically spoilers tags are a terrible choice when the whole thing could be a single sentence with a link. Spoiler tags aren’t uniformly implemented and when pointed out the stance is it’s the clients fault for not doing spoilers the way the dev wants rather than the devs fault for not using a more standardized approach which just bugs me. If the goal was concise conveyance of information, they missed the mark.
Yes, the posts are absolutely huge and I’m unimpressed with the bot devs response-- dude I am not going to switch Lemmy apps to make your bot less annoying.
So the answers in this post are mostly that people are downvoting the bot because it is often wrong and then others defending it by saying “it’s not wrong it’s just based on American politics”.
If the bot reported from a range of sources that reflect a number of different political perspectives I’m sure it’d be more useful outside of the scope of American politics, and therefore wouldn’t get downvoted.
As far as I’m concerned the vote system is working as intended.
The internet is not American. There are no nations on lemmy ✌️
I asked in another thread complaining about MBFC if anyone knew of alternatives and nobody shared anything. Anyone got any?
Edit: Fuck me for asking I guess…
Here’s an analogy:
The alternative to drinking bleach is not drinking bleach. As opposed to drinking “diet bleach,” or something equally ridiculous.
Why do you feel it would need to be replaced?
Because not everyone has strong media literacy. I may have the means to assess the quality of a source on my own but that’s not the case for everyone. This problem will hopefully solve itself with more users on Lemmy who can call out bad sources but right now it’s not uncommon to find posts with zero comments minus the bias bot.
But the bot is biased itself. That’s worse than no information.
Which is why I just asked if anyone knew of any alternatives. I will say, I’m at a minimum that the bot has people talking about how news should be vetted, at least.
Some people have mentioned https://ground.news. I haven’t tried it, this is not a vouch for their credibility.
Thanks for the reply! Ground.news is used by the bot to show potential alternative sources for the story which I’ve found useful.
That part actually is useful. It wouldn’t be getting down voted if it was just that.
They are using MBFC’s bias rating too, with some additional ratings from other sources for a few publishers. Seems to have a strong US-centric view as well.
Agreed. NYT is center-right from my point of view, and I think it’s a pretty neutral assertion. The bot says it’s center left. That’s the same discrepancy as if they would call Fox News Center.
In my opinion the bot tries to shift the overtone window to the right. Just because Trumpists call everything leftist media doesn’t make it that.
This may have just been an autocorrect issue, but it’s Overton Window
Wait, I haven’t seen this bot around?
Two reasons: It’s a spammy bot, and it has a right-wing bias
Oh no, now we need a Media Bias Checker Bot Bias Checker
If you need a bot to tell you a source is or isn’t biased, then you shouldn’t be reading the news in the first place.
This comment seems rather ableist.
The Media Bias Fact Checker bot helps people who have autism understand biased language which may not be readily apparent without an outside source warning us about the biases.
Then it should at least be accurate.
The problem is that the intentions of the bot author aren’t fair and unbiased. They purposely label sites and articles that tilt in favor of their zionist opinions as reliable and trustworthy without regard to the reality of whether they are or are not.
Because your average lemming is a wingnut who thinks anyone to the right of Stalin is a fascist.
I downvote it everytime because of its rightwing bias.
If you say the mainstream corporate news is center left, you’re either stupid or you have a right wing agenda.
And to think, this quote is almost 20 years old! Things have changed a lot since then.
We still make fun of conservatives, but it’s much less funny that they’re actually in power. Conservatives are living up to the satire.
It’s like the aliens in Galaxy Quest who think their Star Trek show is a documentary, only it’s conservatives watching The Colbert Report
Since you asked:
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
Oh so Media Bias is from the USA and believes that anything that isn’t Republican is left 😂
It’s not even on point for American politics. It’s clearly a conservative viewpoint.
How i wish that was true.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Apology accepted
My problem with the downvotes and the criticisms is that they don’t provide any proof or comparison, they simply say that it’s biased and wrong.
At the very least you should be linking examples and comparing against other bias checking sites.
For instance, I immediately disliked biasly.com because the rating system is -100 (Liberal) to 100 (Conservative). I’ve only compared a single site so far but the rating system alone makes me inclined to believe that the site is biased towards conservative views.
I strongly disagree. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim and this bot has zero transparency regarding its benchmark, database or other criteria. That combined with the fact that it’s usage (apparently exclusively) seems to be highly pushed is enough to stay sceptical.
Personally I just blocked it but I have full understanding for anyone downvoting it, simply to communicate “I disagree with the existence of this bot in this context”
I’ve seen several replies to the bot pointing out bias. There’s nobody dedicated to writing a bot to follow around the bias bot and replying every time.
That makes sense, I just hadn’t seen a single post. In a comment above it was stated that posts criticizing the bot are removed, which is possibly why I haven’t seen any.
I haven’t observed that, but I didn’t often visit a comment section twice and I’m certainly not clever enough to notice things missing.
Check out how they rate Guardian and how they rate the Ayn Rand Institute. Then check the fact checking difference between Guardian and NYT. It just gets worse the more you look at it.
Whenever someone gives some good evidence, it gets removed almost immediately. Someone named “Linkerbaan” had two posts about this with actual evidence and it got twice removed.
I tried to search for the one where, I myself commented on and guess? It got removed.
That’s really sketchy. Thanks for sharing.
Any bot that doesn’t actually use lemmy’s “I’m a bot” protocol (so I can hide it completely) gets downvoted. It’s the only thing I even bother downvoting on Lemmy.
the bot has been marked as bot since the very beginning and is also clearly marked as bot in the screenshot, so your comment does not apply here.
I see you’ve replied this a few times now. Can you please complete this test for me?
I like how you sent a screenshot of a failed attempt
It was a joke but i guess it’s wasted here
