Hello World, As many of you have probably noticed, there is a growing problem on the internet when it comes to undisclosed bias in both amateur and professional reporting. While not every outlet can be like the C-SPAN, or Reuters, we also believe that it’s impossible to remove the human element from the news, especially when it concerns, well, humans.

To this end, we’ve created a media bias bot, which we hope will keep everyone informed about WHO, not just the WHAT of posted articles. This bot uses Media Bias/Fact Check to add a simple reply to show bias. We feel this is especially important with the US Election coming up. The bot will also provide links to Ground.News, as well, which we feel is a great source to determine the WHOLE coverage of a given article and/or topic.

As always feedback is welcome, as this is a active project which we really hope will benefit the community.

Thanks!

FHF / LemmyWorld Admin team 💖

  • morphballganon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

  • steventhedev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    3 months ago

    A lot of the criticism I’ve seen thus far falls into two categories:

    1. Users complaining that their favorite source is scored poorly
    2. Users complaining that the ratings have various sources of statistical bias

    The ones in the first group I think should take it as a wakeup call that they are either headline shopping or missing out on other perspectives of current events. This is especially important on the international stage where armed conflicts will naturally produce two opposing accounts (and lots of propaganda).

    The second group have a point - MBFC isn’t the end all be all, but it’s certainly better than nothing. Having meaningful bias measurements for each relevant scale would be impressive but way beyond what MBFC aims to do.

    So all in all - I see this as a very positive change

    • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      3 months ago

      Thanks! Your points are perfectly on target.

      If we had any other api with parity of media bias / fact check, then we would have included it, but we only see paid, no api available.

      But for now we have added a ground.news search link so that everyone can see a third opinion on it.

  • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    A whole lot of people here don’t read MBFC each day and it shows. They tend to take a single and testable claim and make a decision. It’s really easy to see if the claim is true or false if the claim is specific. They don’t have a habit of taking a big claim and ruling it false because of one small detail like Snopes does.

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

        See, this is what I’m talking about. They don’t fact check articles by specific publishers. They fact check a claim. “Is this statement true”, “did X Y”, etc. they don’t do “is this this article by the guardian true.” That’s a whole separate thing not done by them.

        They offer a separate service where they rate the general trustworthiness and bias of a publication but that’s not the same as doing a specific article, is it?

        Your comment makes me wonder if you might be confusing them with someone else or are intentionally saying something about them that isn’t accurate. Because your comment is incompatible with what they actually do.

        • sandbox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          The bot shares the trustworthiness and bias rating for a publication. This entire topic is about that bot. So that’s very obviously what we’re all referring to. I’m not sure if you’re confused or being obtuse.

          • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I must be confused.

            Here is my view of the conversation. Let me know where I went wrong.

            People saying MBFC is biased. Me saying that that’s BS if talking about specific facts checks. Me saying they also offer a bias check for news sources. But that’s not a fact check. You reply saying that they have repeatedly gotten claims by the Guardian UK wrong. Me saying that they don’t fact check whole articles so your statement is inconsistent with the very nature of the type of fact checking they do. You come back saying you are talking about the bias check for the Guardian. Except that’s not what you said in your first comment, is it? You specifically said “failed fact checks of the Guardian UK” which isn’t about their overall rating but about specific facts checks. Their fact checking and their media bias checks are two separate functions.

            So when you tell me I’m being obtuse it looks to me like either you didn’t realize that you complained about one thing while confusing it with another or are trying to gaslight me.

            Where did I go wrong?

            • sandbox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago
              1. Visit https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
              2. Notice Factual Reporting is “Mixed”
              3. Scroll down to “Failed Fact Checks”
              4. Review.

              The website very clearly has a massive centrist, pro-capitalism bias. By picking and choosing what “fact checks” to include, they can tilt the “fact-based reporting” metric in whatever way they choose.

              This metric is what is being included by the bot. That is the topic of conversation. If that metric is biased. It very, very, very clearly is.

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

                Did you just criticize a fact checking organization by calling it centrist? Are you looking for a more left or right biased fact checker?

                • sandbox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  So, I’m guessing you’re American. Basically, your country is so fucked up that you call the right wing left wing and you call the far-right right wing. And centrism is like between right wing and far-right. Does that make sense? So when I say it’s centrist, I mean it’s right wing, but not explicitly fascist. Just contributing towards fascism in a “slow and steady” kind of way. You know, classical liberalism, neo-liberal, that kinda stuff.

                  It’s also very clearly zionist, so calling it centrist was me being a little bit nice.

                  Left wing is anti-capitalist, right wing is pro-capitalist. Hope that helps.

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    3 months ago

    I for one support this. Sure it’s not perfect and the bias checker had its own bias, but it’s merely am advisory, you can disregard it if you want.

  • sic_semper_tyrannis@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Please get rid of it. I’ll figure my own truth from facts I descern are true. I don’t need someone else telling me what to believe. Especially with the election coming up…

  • bartolomeo@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    Good, one should always refer to the Ministry of Truth before deciding what is true or false for The Party.

  • Enoril@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Remove that. It’s too US centric. I don’t want that here.

  • sandbox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    Given the overwhelmingly negative response from the community, what is the justification for leaving the bot in place? Is it because the moderators think they know better than everyone else?

    • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      38
      ·
      3 months ago

      Overwhelmingly negative? Those are the 24/7 negative users. We do anything: Those guys: THIS IS IS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY

      So you stand alone in that statement. See the post vote score.

      We give you the option to block it. Block it.

      • sandbox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Numerous comments contain thoughtfully researched, balanced and reasonable criticisms, and your reaction is to basically call them just a bunch of negative nellies, rather than to consider maybe whether they have a point.

        If I made a bot that shared fake news in comments on every single news story, would you say that having the option to block that bot is sufficient? I can block anyone, yet you still ban people for breaking the rules here.

        You’re getting way too defensive, and digging your heels in - criticism isn’t always bad faith.

        • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          29
          ·
          3 months ago

          They have a point but strict fake news it isnt. It is not an option to leave it without any second bias opinion. Its not banning anyone. If you dislike it and demand it to be shutdown for democracy. Then you arent allowing other opinions.

          • sandbox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            You’ve made a bot which shares the political opinions of one dude as a comment to every single news story on here. A pro-zionist, right-wing dude.

            I’m willing to make a public API to share my media bias and fact-checking report, as well. Will you add my opinion to every news post automatically as well, please? It would save me a lot of trouble!

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Got it, only enthusiastic yes men are actually counted as valid members of the community.

        Interesting take, gotta admit.

    • zephyreks@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Well, it’s more that the mods know that people don’t have an alternative

  • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    3 months ago

    could you have the bot automatically unvote its posts (make it 0) so it goes under new comments when sorted by votes?

    the spoiler thing doesn’t work on eternity and it kinda hides everything under it being so long

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      3 months ago

      I wish bot comments didn’t count toward the comment count, too. It’s annoying to see “1 comment” and then you look and it’s just this or the summary bot.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    3 months ago

    For those reporting the bot:

    We know! We worked with the Admins to enable it. :)