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…

Raffster ,

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.

laughterlaughter ,

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!”

andrew_bidlaw ,
@andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works avatar

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.

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.

Hegar ,
@Hegar@fedia.io avatar

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.

scrion ,

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.

morphballganon ,

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 doesn’t take up too much space.

mashbooq ,

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”

PrivateNoob ,

Fucking hell even Euronews is controlled by Orbán? Ffs there is truly no free media here other than RTL on TVs.

MindTraveller ,

Because fuck Ground News and fuck that spambot

DampSquid ,

Why fuck Ground News?

MindTraveller ,

Their judgement of what’s left, what’s right, and what’s center is arbitrary and misleading.

tilefan ,

I hate bots

TalesOfTrees ,

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.

cdf12345 ,

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

HootinNHollerin ,

Yep. I’m not against it at all in theory but had to block as it’s just atrocious to see on every post, taking up way too much space.

leftzero ,

It labels anything left of outright fascism as “left biased”.

It’s disinformation malware intended to shift the overton window even further right than it already is in the US.

And it’s spam.

Aatube ,

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

Nougat ,

Because I don’t trust some internet rando’s bot to have my best interests in mind.

BackOnMyBS ,
@BackOnMyBS@lemmy.autism.place avatar

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.

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