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…

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    3 months ago

    Unless your goal is to spread misinformation. Anyone that knowingly wants to spread propaganda is going to severely dislike it and be forced to come up with some excuse to be against it, that is more acceptable than “it keeps telling me my russian propaganda is bullshit”.

    We do have a small pro-Russian contingent on here after all. We also occasionally get a MAGA type.

    Personally I do appreciate it, the wikipedia and Ground News links are convenient, I would occasionally manually google those anyway. News consumption is one of the main reasons I’m on here in the first place though, so I might be an outlier in that regard.

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      Can you even point to a post where the bot calls the source out as propaganda (in whatever choice of words it would use to indicate this) or highly untrustworthy? I’ve literally never seen it say anything but left, left center, or center on any source and usually always highly trustworthy or trustworthy.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Mmmm yes everyone who wants to get rid of the conservative corporate disinformation bot is themselves trying to spread disinformation.

      Projection, that’s totally original.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        In America, that is not conservative in the slightest, unless you’re coming from a hard communist position. What’s the corporation?

          • Carrolade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeah, it’s just owned by one dude named Dave, funded mainly through user donations.

              • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                3 months ago

                Uh, yea, actually. When people complain about corporations, they’re worried about how shareholders, who have no actual emotional or long-term attachment to their ownership of the company, have no real incentive to actually do things in any sort of ethical, or even long-term healthy way.

                If they’re just going to sell their shares someday, why should they care?

                If someone is working on a project of their own, it’s much more possible for it to be a passion project, where they care about more than simple short term profitability. You’re just more likely to encounter ethical behavior once that fiduciary duty to shareholder profits above all else is removed.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  See that’s funny though because it’s just the other extreme. One guy is rating thousands of websites by himself?

                  Although we know that’s not the case. Their website says there’s a team.

                  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Well, sure, it’s always going to be run somehow. Things do tend to be owned by people in our system. You could say it should be a nonprofit if you wanted, that’d be fair.

                    And yes, I’d expect a single person would be unable to handle the workload. In addition to reading and fact checking, there’s also the admin stuff, where someone has to run the website, handle expenses, shit like that.

    • ccunning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      3 months ago

      Unless your goal is to spread misinformation

      EXACTLY
      This is why anyone vehemently opposed to it is an instant 🚩for me