It pops up all the time, it’s a waste of time and I’m sure it has been used countless of times to discard some piece of information. It doesn’t add up anything productive to the comments, people who comment don’t even say anything they actually think they just “did you know that MBFC says this so it has to be truth?” I could go on but I think you get the idea.
Those comments sound great. Why are they an issue? Many if the best comments are basically data not personal point of view
The idea that something is not biased based on the fact that “it shouldn’t be neither too lefty nor too righty” is absurd, it has a bias for “centrists” who believe they live on the fence but then you hear them speak they are rightists. I could go on, it’s basically trash, low effort strawman to discredit possible factual information.
I see you don’t let emotion cloud your judgements…
Signed a disgusting centerist
I see that you think you’re Morgan freeman in se7en, but you are NOT Morgan freeman in se7en, and ghost_laptop ain’t Brad Pitt in se7en. I hope you had fun with your little trolling spree in this thread.
The fact that you think its a good idea shows that you believe, even if you are not aware, that your positions are neutral when they’re not. If you are not investigating your own bias why should we bother with comments telling you what is or isn’t biased? All that’s signaling to you is if something is “good” or “bad” because your position is “good” and not biased at all.
I, and others with my perspective, understand that everything has a bias, and you need to be able to read something critically to find that bias. These bias checking sites are not doing that, they are only looking to ensure people who share your view, the natural or default perspective, or the neoliberal perspective, do not read the “wrong” content.
Interesting comment
I have my biases, and I struggle reading most news sources because of theirs. Reading critically is very important and fact checks can help educate people on how to do that. Hopefully without picking up their biases.
So, people should waste time reading a source just because someone has a lot of energy flooding the zone so they can see what the real biases are?
Nothing you’ve said helps justify why adding more information is worse. People can still do your reading critically thing as well
I’m getting more suspicious of you after this emotional plea. What sorts sources are you upset have these comments, do you have some examples?
I don’t think the obvious insinuation is fair to you, but I want to point out that this is an extremely funny turn of phrase.
Speaking of unfair, I don’t think this comment is either. Calling that comment an “emotional plea” worth raising your suspicions is absurd. There’s not even that much of an emotional affectation and certainly there is no appeal to emotion in place of a valid argument. What is “emotional”? That you can infer he has a feeling on the subject? Come on. Furthermore, RedWizard is an upstanding guy from everything I’ve seen of him, and I think it’s just that some of us are really sick of MBFC tacitly question-begging the center being unbiased and people in some spaces always using it to attack anything source left of CNN, a behavior we’ve watched or been subjected to for several years now.
Trying to explain it in terms of how you frame things: You are right when you said elsewhere that people only have so much time to read through various sources, so polluting the space with something that has been long established to be bullshit is detrimental to having more people come to more reasonable conclusions, and this is something that I’m sure you would agree to if it was a source that you really accepted at least that level of criticism for (e.g. it would be a negative for the site to get a deluge of links to flat Earth websites). That is why “adding more information is worse.” If it’s about putting something in an archive, then by all means put whatever you like in the archive so we have it for reference, but for these sorts of fleeting discussions, it is obviously harmful.
To be clear though, I don’t support banning it on the basis that the liberals who fancy that .ml is oppressing them are already so annoying and this would give them another thing to make constant complaints about. I think we should just have a bot response tagged on to comments that link to the site.
Edit: RW does make more emotional comments elsewhere, but again not appealing to emotion, so I don’t think the criticism rises above the most absurd of tone-policing.
Fair. I think I say something similar in my “lemmy.ml” post that was a bit harsh / blunt: I get why this community wouldn’t like media bias. I didn’t expand to say that the spectrum they view the world through (I’m painting with a broad brush here and assuming how capitalist something is) isn’t in the media bias website and a bunch of sources they trust are flagged as unreasonable. I also say its not a community I particularly enjoy so I’ll be off
As in “You can read critically but for me, fuck that” is pretty funny to interject into this conversation? I almost edited it to be clearer and closer to “People can and do still read critically, you know that set of words people seem to be latching onto with questionable usage”
Yeah, emotional was the wrong word although, like your edit gets at, it might apply to later comments. I’m about to leave the conversation but something like a preaching continued push might be closer. I’m lazy to reread the thread properly, I’m sure I have enough faults in it too
But, the raising suspicions is fair. It was a continued push of someone towards a viewpoint, very quick to presume my views, on recycled arguments and that is usually for me pretty suspicious
Maybe you would have energy to reread if you didn’t waste energy being a troll.
Because the additional information holds some random dipshits opinion on what is trustworthy and what not. When you see the “additional information” to show that something is trustworthy you read it uncritically
Oh wow. You believe trustworthy means you shouldn’t read something uncritically? What an interesting world you live in
Yes i believe the majority of people that assume something is declared trustworthy read it uncritically. If you read my other comment it’s easier to assume everything is not trustworthy, so it forces you to read it critically. What an naive world you live in to not see this
MBFC is like 100% vibes masquarading as actual data. If we had some objective measure of a news source, I would welcome it, but that’s a fantasy.
Yeah, it’s a tough problem to solve but I don’t think for it’s a terrible source for getting a feel when someone drops a link from an institution you’ve never heard of. No one really has the time to fact check every article or explore every institution. Agreed the website, and concept, has more than a few flaws
Way to admit that you let yourself to be propagandized. You should always read news critically. It’s easier to assume that everything is trying to push something, than to rely on a fancy graph some random dipshit on the internet created and then read it uncritically
What a way to admit you’re not realistic about the amount of time you have and how long things take
I never said I didn’t read things critically. That not fact checking which takes time beyond noticing bias and logical issues
The contradiction is so glaring that I’m not sure if you read what you write as you heavily imply it
If it just ranked an outlets political opinion as left, right or center: no one would really be upset. It’s their effort to rank by credibility, and labeling centrisim as “unbiased” is fundamentally asinine; not “a few flaws”.
There are definitely more axis that could be added but the center isn’t unbiased. The left and right tend to be pretty biased. Plenty in the center is too. Where are you seeing the center labeled as unbiased?
The word “center” implies that it’s less biased/unbiased to the majority of people. It’s what average people see as a “safe” source and allows them to read it uncritically. Media literacy is not as widespread as you think it as, as demonstrated with your handling of this subject. Why are you so obtuse about it?
You can make much sharper criticism than that, because MBFC at sometimes suggests and other times says outright that the center is the least biased (see davel’s comment).
If you find it especially helpful to know what centrist liberals think of a source, then sure, but the fact is that people talk about it like it’s “basically data and not a personal point of view” (not necessarily saying you do) which is catastrophically false.
I hadn’t seen these people (but now have seen it a couple of times) and you have to start somewhere. At its core, it’s just a comment someone is making. It really interesting seeing this group so favourable to banning or setting up an auto-reply
You don’t need to trust the institution, you need to read the article and use brain power to differentiate “propaganda” from actual information. You won’t be able to do much reading the headline, it doesn’t matter if it comes straight out of Putin’s ass hole or from Biden’s dick.
From half of these comments I’m not seeing a lot of brain power used to avoid propaganda and just a lot of people buying into it
Ooooh. This is lemmy.ml, oops. I deleted ask anything from here since this group was tiring. But now I can guess why people are upset about the comment even though no one took the time to answer and give a few examples… they just took time to say how upsetting the site was
Go back to bed grandpa, your brain is leaking.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/un-watch/
Now go read the UNwatch website.
You’re going to have to spell out the point you attempted to make
Stop.You are not entitled to tedious explanations of everything. You are abusing the good will of the members of this community. Many users have been exhaustingly comprehensive in answering your questions, but you insist on being dismissive, obtuse, and lazy. It is clear that you’re trolling. I hate to consider the alternative and how it reflects on your behavior, so I’ll give you the benefit the doubt.Edit: whoops, I forgot I was reading a month-old thread. So, I added a strikethrough to the word “stop” since this conversation was over until I showed up.
Fucking hilarious comment in the conversation tree to add this comment to. (It assumes context with UN Watch and knowing what specific views this community holds of it). It highlights why I left the community and blocked a couple of people in this conversation. Feel free to do the same to me
One of the issues with me trying to understand more here was that this thread blew up so it was tough to keep threads straight and I made mistakes replying to a comment assuming it was isolated but it was answered elsewhere or the same person made a lot of comments.
I see you made a few comments and the other two seem to be pretty low information and not in good faith… so I guess I’ll find that button for you too
Everyone replied to you in more than one way and there are at least 4 or 5 examples of people doing these lazy strawmen. You’re the one who, as you showed, doesn’t bother reading or thinking critically. Imagine being offended because I oppose using some rando’s POV on news as factual evidence.
I propose you a brain game. I will create my own media bias fact fuck, and everything that’s not lefty is considered biased.
I missed these. Where were the links to past comments? Or are you counting generic arguments, because those don’t paint a very clear picture so I didn’t count them. And they seemed very much like the same argument with different words: for some reason they imply sources in towards the centre of the political spectrum are without bias and for some reason that means people don’t read them critically when this is pointed out.
I get that from what I guess your views are but it’s also not particularly equivalent. Especially for the US media landscape and for better or worse a lot of these checks seem to have their roots there.
https://lemmy.ml/post/41090217/23074153
https://lemmy.ml/post/41090217/23073183
The second link is exactly what I was after. Thanks.
Am I misunderstanding the first just after waking up? It seems to be a summary that points to this comment as its example:
https://lemmy.ml/comment/8913172
And that seems to be someone referencing the site while dripping with sarcasm and seems to be making the case that the OP is.