Why are people downvoting the MediaBiasFactChecker bot?

Because their methodology is nothing but buzzwords:

The primary aim of our methodology is to systematically evaluate the ideological leanings and factual accuracy of media and information outlets. This is achieved through a multi-faceted approach that incorporates both quantitative metrics and qualitative assessments in accordance with our rigorously defined criteria.

Despite apparently having “rigorously defined criteria”, they don’t actually say what they are.

Same reason I don't trust it - imagine rating fking BBC (the literal pro-state violence, austerity supporting, anti-immigration governmental mouth piece as "left-center")

It just distorts people's perception of what political biases are and makes them complacent by relying on an automated bot to do the important work of using your own judgment for what constitutes as moral or justified.

By letting it platform itself on lemmy, it's basically inserting itself as the de facto expert on the topic - so for example, people overseas might see BBC rated as left-center and highly factual and start believing that wanting to "secure your borders" is a thing that UK leftist want. Well excuse me if I don't want a privately owned (even if open source) US company deciding what political views others should have.

Any thoughts on TLDR (Youtube channel)?

TBH, I just don't think something better is possible - I suspect that there are no valid shortcuts to trust.

Unless something is just obviously bullshit, it will always take some time to develop a sense of how the different sources are treating a new story. Even a trusted source can prove unreliable on a particular topic.

It's uncomfortable living with that uncertainty until you've seen a story from enough angles that you can judge for yourself. But either the story is important enough to me to spend that time, or I just accept that I can't really know.

I'm not going to be surprised when we find out MBFC and Ground News were actually info ops from corporations.

The problem is many people aren't tuned into political ideology. The second they see left or right they sort it by their internal bias. So it's whitewashing a lot of conservative European sources. It's also rating American far right positions as center right, so absolutely whitewashing them, even for someone who understands MBFC is an American site with American prejudices.

Honestly I'm surprised they've lasted 8 years without this getting called out, it should fairly well jump out at anyone who has studied politics.

The libertarian, "drown the government in the bathtub" group are centrists now?

Are you serious? Social issues aren't the only thing you can swing left and right on. This is a massive pro corporate blindspot if MBFC continues that as a trend.

Nobody is saying lean makes something misinformation. We're saying the way the categories are used deceives, "a typical fast food eating, reality tv watching, not-super-engaged American" into believing good objective sources are running biased articles.

And the American left is the center in the rest of the world. Playing into the American idea of centrism only makes the project biased, not some high minded goal. That's some of that good exceptionalism propaganda.

And reframing things to fit our own perspective? From the person defending the end of the federal government as a centrist position.

You put a lot of high minded stuff in there but it comes down to American Exceptionalism trying to force its views on the rest of the world and a shit take on enlightened centrism. The facts on the ground are clear. MBFC plays favorites for conservatives.

We should want analysis to be from the perspective of a typical fast food eating, reality tv watching, not-super-engaged American

Why? Lemmy is a worldwide site.

You should use a client that supports all of the text formatting. On Voyager the bot’s comment is smaller than most when collapsed (which it is by default).

You can’t block it?

What client do you use? It looks fine in Thunder. (I agree it's spammy in general, but not because of the formatting.)

Or you can just block it to hide it..

out of personal curiosity, are you seeing this with the bots setting turned off? I thought that setting was a universal setting that just hide all bot posts for the account

When I was on in Reddit I used to do it all the time, but writing everything out, organizing it and including citations etc. can be rather time-intensive.

These days, I'll leave a quick comment on a post if I have enough time, but nothing major.

The posts are 4 lines but when each comment includes 3 or 4 sources it checks, you end up with a giant block of spoiler text that usually takes up about a full screen (Sometimes less, sometimes more)

I blocked it a few months back.

It is not propaganda if it is true. Al Jazeera has journalists on the ground and many of them have been killed by Israeli forces.

I didn’t know that. You are not thinking of Spacetoon by neighboring Bahrain? The two countries 🇧🇭🇶🇦 can get easily confused. If Al Jazeera did have a kids channel it is news to me.

I'm 99% certain you're from the United States if you think MSNBC is anything beyond center to center left.

We seem to have a different opinion of what is left-wing and what is not. I do not think the Democratic party is left-wing at all. It is centre-right to right (with the Republican party being far-right).

I know of none American left-wing news outlets and the only left-wing bias I know of is truth.

It would be nice if bot comments weren't counted, at least as an option.

Downvoting definitely makes your opinion on it known though. Otherwise we wouldn't be here reading all this.

wikipedia has a fairly neutral article on it.

Today, it usually refers to one of two groups- the far right political faction in Israel that believe there can be no peace with a two state solution (i.e. no Palestine,) and that it's their god-given right to murder all palestinians to acheive peace...

Or the christian zionists that support them because their own faith says their god won't come to save them until they- the jews- rebuild their temple. or something. Fundies get weird.

Disinformation is dangerous. That's how we got the white "alternative facts" thing in the first place. We shouldn't tolerate it at all.

So people can just downvote it instead right? That's literal direct democracy at play - if there's more people that like the bot they'll upvote it and it will have a positive score - saying "just bury your head in the sand if you don't agree with this message" is the reason we're in this political mess in the first place..

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.

So because spammers exist you created an eveng greater spammer?

What does "third opinion" mean? That its supposedly "neutral" or "unbiased"?

I always remember when I learnt that the liberals of Australia were the conservative party, and that labor was to the left of them. Every country seems to have a different spectrum.

Well for the most part if we want to have a less context-dependent measure, with some caveats – "left" is advocates of a socialist (or communist if you wish to separate them) economic system and social equality, and "right" is advocates of a capitalist or fascist economic system and social hierarchy. Around the center would be where social democrats/capitalists who want strong social safety are, or in other words people who want a mixed-economy/regulated capitalism and are for the most part socially progressive.

Also it's hard to tell what you mean by "pure libs" but in most of the world that implies extremely free-market capitalist and pro-discrimination under the guise of "free speech" – very to the right. They're usually called "libertarians" or "ancaps" in the US.

If by "pure lib" you mean a principled American "liberal" then there's not really much to differentiate that from a social democrat – in practice America's liberal politicians are either social democrats, or corrupt politicians who suck up to corporate money and stand in the way of social democrats – the latter definitely not being centrists. Same goes for "social liberals".

Either way there is no chance that democratic socialists are as extremist as national conservatives. Democratic socialists are barely left of social democrats, so much so that social democrats label themselves democratic socialists all the time. The ideology is dependent upon reforming a fundamentally capitalistic system in an attempt to achieve socialism, while more lefty ideologies are focused on forcing the ruling/regressive capitalist class to comply (and some just outright skip to purging all the aristocracy who are anti-worker).

An accurate-ish description may be "socialist" and "syndicalist" vaguely can be anywhere on the left, so 5.5 to 10; "communist" and similar adjectives like "ararcho-communist" encompass 9 to 10; "anarchist" contains ideologies between center and fully left, so 5 to 10 (although most anarchist ideology is very far to the left, a lot of them are communists); "democratic socialist" is 5.5 to 7; "social democrat" is 4.5 to 5.5; the American "left" is mostly anywhere between 4 and 6.5 nowadays, although a decade ago it'd be more like 3 to 4.5, with actual social democrats being considered fringe or "extremists". US "conservativism" (or "conservatism", pick your poison on the spelling) is pretty much entirely "sounds kinda like fascism" to "fascism" at this point, so 1.5 to 2.5, with some politicians in the faction maybe squeaking it out to 3 or 3.5. Full-blown Nazis are 1. Libertarians/classical liberals are harder to classify in this sort of system, as in practice they're usually as right-wing and reggressive as American conservatives, but their ideology is theoretically supposed to be more like a 3.5. Ancaps are just straight up 1 to 2.5 though, a complete lack of law applying to corporations & companies in general, being anti-government funding except when it's military or police (except some of the farthest right of them believe even those should be completely private). They're on par with fascist in terms of the scale from left to right.

Assuming decimals are out of the question, let's just truncate everything higher than 5 and round up everything lower than 5.

Generally, the American public (or rather, the white majority) hovers at 3 to 4, with younger people being more like 4 to 7.

What's fucked is most people think of prominent historical figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela as at a similar position in a political spectrum as American liberals, when in reality they were literally full-blown revolutionary socialists/marxists and belonged to communist organizations. And figures like Gandhi and Orwell were openly reformist socialists. I mean it's intentional rightwashing by the government to get rid of any and all semblance of left ideology from now-near-legendary people, and it's not surprising at all, but it's still fucked. This is the framework of thinking Americans have when they try to categorize ideologies on a left-to-right spectrum; the most leftist historical figures they know that aren't Stalin or Mao or something are all rightwashed into oblivion, portrayed to be liberal in the American sense, which tricks people into believing the farthest left you can go before you cross the centrist line is Bill Clinton or something.

If we take "left or right" to "how far one acts to accelarate towards progressivism or regressivism", though, then I could see your proposed comparison working decently, with the caveat being that democratic socialists wouldn't be anywhere near communists in that regard either.