Behavior rules:
Posting rules:
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
I honestly don't understand why people are downvoting the media bias bot. From what I've seen, it is pretty accurate. Is it that people see the comment count go up and expect a human comment to interact with, only to be disappointed and then downvote the bot?
If so, I'd suggest Lemmy/Mbin to not could comments made by bot accounts towards the total comment count.
It might have something to do with their steadfast insistence on rating literal Zionist propaganda outlets that spread straight up lies that have been debunked hundreds of times over as “extremely credible”.
Just ignoring reality like that tends to hurt the credibility of a credibility meter.
And don’t get me wrong, I have a shit ton of gripes about The Guardian as a trans person, but rating its factual reporting as “mixed” while the NYT is “high” is either incompetence or an agenda. I think they bank on Americans not being familiar with what international papers are reputable.
Absolutely. And also banking on both Americans and non-Americans to be unaware of the extreme pro-zionist, pro-cop, and pro-establishment bias of the NYT as well as the lies they keep spreading as a result.
Wikipedia's entries note that such outlets aren't much credible.
MBFC equates respectable outlets like The Guardian and literal nazi rag Breitbart
It's propaganda masquerading as impartiality
I honestly don't understand
Could have just stopped there tbh.
From what I've seen, it is pretty accurate
It's not. It's the hobby of a right wing Zionist masquerading as a neutral and authorative arbiter of facts and bias.
For example, it rates The Guardian, Fox News and Breitbart as equally factual.
Is it that people see the comment count go up and expect a human comment to interact with, only to be disappointed and then downvote the bot?
That too, yes. Personally I have it blocked and get annoyed by there being no comments in stead.
If so, I'd suggest Lemmy/Mbin to not could comments made by bot accounts towards the total comment count.
Or just get rid of the biased and counterfactual bias and fact checker.
The Bot is wildly inaccurate as other people have pointed out. Even having the idea of potentially one person verifying the veracity of all news media is plainly ludicrous.
I downvoted it when it showed clear bias, which was most of the comments I saw.
I don't like it because it's placing an objective statement on a subjective matter. it's also apparently run by a single person (which is understandable given what it needs to do) but I just don't like the vibes that gives off.
I think it'd be a lot better if it just stated objective things (e.g. where their funding comes from, the corporate relationships, country they're based in)
I like how everyone hates this Bot! I don't really care about this Bot itself, but it's funny how no one likes the Bot and yet they still trying to make it work somehow :P
gives off the same 'solution looking for a problem' vibes as corporate marketing around ai lmao
The internet is full of enough bots without making a bot for every dumbass thing on the fediverse, but I guess we really are reddit 2.0
Didn’t it get removed after people voted to kill it? I haven’t seen it lately.
so weird. the people don't like MBFC.
I don’t like bots in general. I find them annoying AF