News

Does this consider the bias of who runs MBFC?

This is a bad bot using bad reasoning and it's only going to hurt the state of discourse. You're not countering dishonesty, you're encouraging it.

I think this is so stupid.

I swear it's a "centrist" libertarian idealism that you are gonna find all the biases of the publication so that you feel superior for not falling for any of them.

To a degree things should make you feel an emotional response and to not and think yourself better for not, makes you falsely superior.

I get it for making sure that propaganda isn't posted but that's more of what general community moderation is for is it not?

I dunno, I definitely don't think it should be so prominent. I barely think it's needed. Maybe people could call to the bot to check for them? But putting privately decided political leaning on every post just seems like needless segregation that allows for people to immediately ignore that and the conversation that can be had from it.

After seeing the comment on a few posts, the length is really bothering me. I don't want to block the bot since it's useful information. What about a single line of text with a link to "read more"?

Example with explanations:

404 Media is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check. (change Media Bias Fact Check to a link that goes to a post explaining what they do, the reason for the bot, and a link to their donation page)

Check the bias and credibility of this article on ground.news. (change "this article" to be a link instead of displaying link in plain text)

How it might look:

404 Media is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

Check the bias and credibility of this article on ground.news.

Thank you for putting this into place!

I hate this and have already blocked the bot.

Comments are obscenely long, and I see no reason to trust your source.

Putting some site in charge of determining what news is valid just means that site controls the bias. I like the wide mix that we get now. Partisan commenters are more of a problem than bias in the sources. It's best when there are informed commenters who point out issues. Sometimes we have them, though not always.

I think the bot is crap based on this: The Guardian Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [Medium]

The guardian is one of the best newspapers on the planet and published content exposing such as the Panama Papers.

Very cool. I would also recommend Wikipedia's perennial news list as a source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Bot: Hmm this article reflects reality, thus it is biased to the left.

Using charged language like that constitutes disinformation and is reprehensible. Imagine if viewers started disregarding a source on account of your bot declaring it biased.

Shameful.

A timely article about why this type of "rating" is a really bad idea:

The most chilling words today: I’m from NewsGuard and I am here to rate you by Jonathan Turley.

Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.

Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.

Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

The "footer" section is very long, and the spoiler tags don't seem to do anything on the Boost app. This makes the bot comment take up an entire screen on mobile.

Excellent work, admins!

Reporting the bot will not get you what you want/expect. If you don't like it, you're welcome to block it.

Mods, I appreciate this bot!

Deciphering media bias is tough, and finding 1 site that will 'perfectly' identify biases is an impossible task, but at the minimum having this bot show up on posts 'gets people thinking' about the credibility of their news sources.

MBFC doesn't have to be the ultimate arbitrator either. If it is missing something about a specific article people can call it out in the comments. At the end of the day, the worst thing it does is add more data about a news source and I'm not gonna complain about that.

This is awesome!

The amount of people that can't handle a super basic rating of a news outlet is chilling.

I know and accept that I rely on biased media, because all of it is biased. It's media, not scientific papers (which are also often biased btw.). Having a bias does not automatically make it bad.

I care a lot about factual reporting tho. And I want to see the same news from different POVs, with different biases, because they will highlight different things. If you don't, mute the bot, get your daily dose of whatever propaganda you like so much and stfu.

And no, this is not 'centrism'. I'm pretty sure most people who use that word don't even know what it means. Historically, centrism describes a moderate left-wing view. Centrists are the center of left.

Love this! There are a couple of extensions that do similar around the web but something similar for social circles was missing. Great solution.