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…

  • ccunning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    3 months ago

    Other people clearly don’t think it’s a helpful resourcem

    They should block it.

    It gets weird when folks start trying to keep everyone else from having it available as a resource.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Disinformation is dangerous. That’s how we got the white “alternative facts” thing in the first place. We shouldn’t tolerate it at all.

      • tyler@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Nobody in this comment section has provided a single instance of it being disinformation. But people sure are claiming a lot of shit without backing up it one bit. I’m inclined to believe that they’re most likely far right trolls who disagree with their favorite news outlets getting labeled something.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          So you missed this comment then? And the ones where they point out any pro Palestinian source is rated badly?

          • tyler@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            There isn’t a single link or source for literally any of these claims in any of the comments. So yeah I’m still pretty sure it’s just people making shit up until they can back up a claim, even one.

              • tyler@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Not if they don’t provide a link to the news source they’re talking about. So yeah, still no proof, source, nothing. Pretty clear it’s your bias at this point.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  So you’re too lazy to check the cross reference of BBC and the Ayn Rand Institute on MBFC and too lazy to go to their websites and you want to blame me for not giving you the simplest links ever?

                  Did you press F to doubt when they tried to teach you 1+1 in 1st grade too?

                  • tyler@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    You make a claim, you source it. That’s how debates (and literally any science at all) work dumbass.

    • zazo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      So people can just downvote it instead right? That’s literal direct democracy at play - if there’s more people that like the bot they’ll upvote it and it will have a positive score - saying “just bury your head in the sand if you don’t agree with this message” is the reason we’re in this political mess in the first place…

      • Pika@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Personally I find the downvote/up vote system to be super unproductive, the only thing it accomplishes is squashing the minority opinion, I keep the score system disabled for the comments section as a whole, it makes life easier and prevents me from being effected by populous/bandwagon bias. It still sorts by score for top-level but, it made navigating so much much peaceful.

      • ccunning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        Sure - do whatever you want. There are users on this very instance that I downvote every post they make rather than block.

        I also have comment(s?) in this very thread about when I downvote it.

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      3 months ago

      Unless your goal is to spread misinformation. Anyone that knowingly wants to spread propaganda is going to severely dislike it and be forced to come up with some excuse to be against it, that is more acceptable than “it keeps telling me my russian propaganda is bullshit”.

      We do have a small pro-Russian contingent on here after all. We also occasionally get a MAGA type.

      Personally I do appreciate it, the wikipedia and Ground News links are convenient, I would occasionally manually google those anyway. News consumption is one of the main reasons I’m on here in the first place though, so I might be an outlier in that regard.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        Can you even point to a post where the bot calls the source out as propaganda (in whatever choice of words it would use to indicate this) or highly untrustworthy? I’ve literally never seen it say anything but left, left center, or center on any source and usually always highly trustworthy or trustworthy.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Mmmm yes everyone who wants to get rid of the conservative corporate disinformation bot is themselves trying to spread disinformation.

        Projection, that’s totally original.

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          In America, that is not conservative in the slightest, unless you’re coming from a hard communist position. What’s the corporation?

            • Carrolade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah, it’s just owned by one dude named Dave, funded mainly through user donations.

                • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Uh, yea, actually. When people complain about corporations, they’re worried about how shareholders, who have no actual emotional or long-term attachment to their ownership of the company, have no real incentive to actually do things in any sort of ethical, or even long-term healthy way.

                  If they’re just going to sell their shares someday, why should they care?

                  If someone is working on a project of their own, it’s much more possible for it to be a passion project, where they care about more than simple short term profitability. You’re just more likely to encounter ethical behavior once that fiduciary duty to shareholder profits above all else is removed.

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    See that’s funny though because it’s just the other extreme. One guy is rating thousands of websites by himself?

                    Although we know that’s not the case. Their website says there’s a team.

      • ccunning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        Unless your goal is to spread misinformation

        EXACTLY
        This is why anyone vehemently opposed to it is an instant 🚩for me