There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

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…

tilefan ,
@tilefan@lemm.ee avatar

I hate bots

otp OP ,

You can block them

tilefan ,
@tilefan@lemm.ee avatar

I didn’t say I don’t like seeing them, I said I hate them. they represent nothing but spam as far as my emotional response

Pika ,
@Pika@sh.itjust.works avatar

I agree with op, It seems to be in your best interest to block them if they are effecting you that badly.

tilefan ,
@tilefan@lemm.ee avatar

I feel like I really shouldn’t have to. if people genuinely wanted to use your bot, they would opt in

Pika ,
@Pika@sh.itjust.works avatar

they would need to know about it is my only issue with that. It’s better to know and opt out, that way you know that it exists. Otherwise there was resources that nobody would know existed otherwise. A users personal opinion shouldn’t impact other users, and forcing bots to be opt in would impact the people who would want to use them just are unaware they exist.

No other major platform does bots as opt in, and that’s generally the reason for it

tilefan ,
@tilefan@lemm.ee avatar

lol so people’s personal opinions should only affect others so long as the effect is one you agree with? just make it one option for all bots. right when you sign up: do you want to see bots? check yes or no.

this isn’t supposed to be like other major platforms. most sites are concerned with driving engagement and retention, and user-made bots is a really cheap and lazy way to do that.

Pika ,
@Pika@sh.itjust.works avatar

No it would be stupid to think that, however if there is an argument between two ideologies, the side that gives the most Freedom should be the side that’s represented I would have thought the fediverse of all places would agree with that principle.

Secondly that option already exists on at least the three instances I’ve signed up. I figured it was a universal setting, Whether that option actually works or not I’m not sure because I’ve never actually checked it because I don’t mind Bots if there’s one that’s annoying I just block it.

As for your last part, I wouldn’t agree that Bots are a cheap way to drive engagement, most Developers won’t make a bot with the expectation of bringing more users to the platform or drive engagement, they make a bot to fill a gap in utility that the platform is not currently giving, Beit entertainment, moderation, informational. The only platform that I can think actively creates Bots with the intention of increasing monetary value and engagement would be Discord and even then that’s more of a stretch because it’s more Discord forcing the monetary features on the Developers

tilefan ,
@tilefan@lemm.ee avatar

you’re acting like I’m the person who made the argument. that entire first paragraph is an argument against what you said the first time.

I suggested a toggle feature, and you said they already exist and you don’t have a problem with them. so what’s left?

Pika ,
@Pika@sh.itjust.works avatar

I might have not been clear, all my comments have been pro opt-out, not opt-in. I’m not sure where I was confusing in that so I will attempt to clarify

I responded to your comment of if “people genuinely wanted to use your bot, they would opt in” with my statement that that type of system is counterproductive to the freedom of choice that the Fediverse is built off, many people would never know the bot existed in the first place if it just doesn’t show. If you don’t like bots, fine, block them (or disable bot posts in settings if that button works, ive never personally tested it) and move on. Removing the choice from the users is not a fair option because it doesn’t preserve the freedom of the platform, which is giving everyone the choice.

It seemed like you have an actual hatred of bots in general, which is fine, to each their own, so I recommended that rather than subject yourself to having to deal with them, just turn them off. I don’t understand why you would want to subject yourself to seeing something you dislike.

tilefan ,
@tilefan@lemm.ee avatar

I suggested opt in. you stated why you thought that was a bad idea, and mentioned the toggle option. I agreed that the toggle option was good. we have arrived at the same page as far as I can tell

tilefan ,
@tilefan@lemm.ee avatar

also I see this a lot, don’t assume that everybody you meet on here is somehow a part of this monolithic fediverse. constantly I see people surprised to meet someone on this site with a differing opinion from them and they go, “I never thought I’d meet somebody like that HERE”. we are all individuals, and using a site doesn’t mean that you agree with, or even care about, the platform’s core principles.

Pika ,
@Pika@sh.itjust.works avatar

I agree, everyone will have their own opinions of things, I do think there is a good reason to re-enforce the core values of the platform though, as that is the thing that separates this platform from the others. To revoke that would be to fall back against the same values that a lot of people on this platform joined it for, which is a decentralized freedom of choice platform. It was the main advertisement point of the fediverse, the ability to be free of a corporation or “superuser” choice. A lot of the people on the platform are a triage of “refugees” that fled to this platform from various sources either by limitation of speech or by their host site becoming toxic/unusable. As much as I hate “drinking the koolaid” I do have to agree that this the entire point of the freedom of federation is what makes this style of sites better than the other alternatives.

ccunning ,

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.

DrFuggles ,

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.

otp OP ,

But who does these ratings?

That information is available on the website, no? Along with their methodology

DrFuggles ,

yes, I know. I meant it more along the lines of whoever comes up with a method for standardizing bias in media puts their own bias in the methodology.

For example, I feel it is a political statement in itself to have a “bias spectrum” from left to unbiased to right. This implies that both left an right are “biases”, while only the center is truly neutral and therefore an arbiter of truth and facts. Enlightened centrism, anyone?

Also, I disagree with parts of their methodology. The headline “Habitual liar and convicted felon to seek US presidency again” would probably be classified as loaded language, whereas “Donald Trump wants to become president again” would be considered more neutral.

I would argue that the former example is, in fact, more truthful than the latter because it doesn’t omit major reasons why this is newsworthy. But since the mbfc is founded on the illusion idea that there is such a thing as truly neutral common ground, it conflates perspective and bias.

otp OP ,

Judging by headlines alone, I’d agree about your assessment of bias.

“World-renowned businessman Donald Trump runs for president” would be biased in favour of Trump (so, Right-biased).

Bias isn’t inherently a bad thing if it’s telling the truth. Yeah, there’s propaganda, but an astute reader can figure it out. Or if you don’t want to read media with a certain bias, then you can skip those publications.

Bias also includes what stories to publish. Right-leaning (and beyond) media probably doesn’t publish a whole lot about the bad things and mistakes Trump did. Yet with completely neutral-sounding headlines, they could still be a biased publication based on the things they choose to publish (or not) and highlight (or not).

match ,
@match@pawb.social avatar

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

PM_Your_Nudes_Please ,

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)_/¯

otp OP ,

I get that. I hope your client fixed them soon, lol

corsicanguppy ,

I can confirm the Jerboa client works well with those spoiler tags.

Alpha71 ,

Because I hate all bots.

LifeInMultipleChoice ,

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?

otp OP ,

Why not block it? Lol

bartolomeo ,
@bartolomeo@suppo.fi avatar

It promotes the existing power structure, which some people think is no bueno.

For example, if you post this:

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.

mholiv ,

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.


<span style="color:#323232;">**IRAQ:**
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">STATUS: Since 1998, the Iraqi government has barred U.N. weapons inspectors from examining sites where some suspect that nuclear, chemical or biological weapons are made and stored. The United Nations has said it will lift sanctions against the Middle Eastern country -- in place since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the ensuing Gulf War in 1991 -- only if inspectors can verify that Iraq has dismantled all its weapons of mass destruction. In an editorial this month in a state-run newspaper, Iraq again denied it has or is developing such weapons.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">RESPONSE TO BUSH'S SPEECH: "This statement of President Bush is stupid and a statement that does not befit the leader of the biggest state in the world," Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said Wednesday.
</span>
bartolomeo ,
@bartolomeo@suppo.fi avatar

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.

anguo ,

I’ve downvoted it on articles where political bias is completely irrelevant.

Furbag ,

Breaking News: Biden takes big sip of water from “World’s Greatest Dad” mug.

MBFC: “This source is left-leaning.”

otp OP ,

It’d be fun to see it in gaming communities lol

gigachad ,

Because it doesn’t support their agenda. People don’t want news from credible sources but opinions that confirm their world views.

Maalus ,

Bullshit. It has been proven multiple times to be biased with explanations like “this source has never posted untrue things, but we still give it a mixed reliability rating”. It’s an opinion of one dude and it shows.

MapleEngineer ,
@MapleEngineer@lemmy.world avatar

Extremists hate being fact checked. The reality is that you can fact check the fact checking but that can also be fact checked.

bloodfart ,

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”.

Aatube ,

It hides the most important stuff behind accordions and there are some sources for bias & reliability checking the community favors.

Adanisi ,
@Adanisi@lemmy.zip avatar

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.

otp OP ,

It’s not the bot that makes the judgement

Adanisi ,
@Adanisi@lemmy.zip avatar

No it’s the person who owns the source.

A pro-Israel American iirc.

Blaze ,

A pro-Israel American iirc.

Any comment where they stated so? Seems wild based on the current context

Melody ,

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.

Sibbo ,

It thinks that the guardian would have only medium credibility

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •