Ruleminder that the "fact checker" bot lemmy.world has running is now more unpopular than the most popular user is popular
Ruleminder that the "fact checker" bot lemmy.world has running is now more unpopular than the most popular user is popular
slrpnk.net
MediaBiasFactChecker almost broke the whole system - SLRPNK
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.
Wikipedia's entries note that such outlets aren't much credible.
No, that would have made it the most popular user lemmy has ever seen. I think it was because it was something that no one asked for like that one U2 album.
MBFC equates respectable outlets like The Guardian and literal nazi rag Breitbart
It's propaganda masquerading as impartiality
Could have just stopped there tbh.
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.
That too, yes. Personally I have it blocked and get annoyed by there being no comments in stead.
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)
For me I liked it at first but ended up blocking it after it started doing "more stories like" which revealed that it was clearly there to turn a profit.