No comments or anything, just lots of Downvotes.
Because your average lemming is a wingnut who thinks anyone to the right of Stalin is a fascist.
I’ve had to block it because it takes up two screens of my phone as my client doesn’t support spoiler tags properly. I’m not going to change my client over one noisy bot.
Also MBFC seems to be a bit biased (it’s definitely not correct on a few in the UK), as most bias rankings are, it’s why services like Ground News use several of these services to make up their ratings. At the end of the day only using MBFC data isn’t much better than listening to one guy tell you “yeah they’re totally fine”
Finally from what little discussion I’ve seen with the owner of the bot, they don’t seem to be very collaborative with the rest of the community and just shut down criticism.
- People disagree on the bias bot reporting
- People don’t like their biases being made visible
- People don’t realize they have a bias
- People find the bot noisy
Someone just told me that it “labels everything short of fascism as ‘left-leaning’” and “tries to shift the Overton window” even further right than it already is in the US.
And I suppose that is correct if your idea of the spectrum of normal political opinions is restricted to what you see on Lemmy, especially if your instance hasn’t defederated from Hexbear yet.
Where anyone puts the “center” of the political spectrum is arbitrary and ultimately irrelevant. What we should still be able to expect is that it gets the ordering of sources correct—i.e., it doesn’t label Source A as being to the left of Source B if it’s actually to the right. And that relative ordering is still useful, as long as we bear in mind that the actual labels are otherwise arbitrary.
It puts Reuters as the center and that seems pretty accurate, IMO.
The bot is crap. This is how it rates Raw Story, a clickbait factory that churns out shallow articles with dramatic, misleading headlines. It just produces slop for liberal Boomers to fill up their Facebook feed, but based on the bot’s reply, you’d think it was the Gaurdian.
Thank you for actually providing an example. I’ve asked and I’ve seen others ask but no one ever actually provides evidence to back their claim, they just downvote or say “bot bad”.
Sure, no problem. Also, I think it would be disingenuous to pretend that at least some of this backlash isn’t from people who don’t like the idea that their beliefs may not be objective facts. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t struggle with that from time to time.
But the real problem I have with these bots is that they can never capture the kind of nuance vetting a source requires. The Raw Story ranks high on credibility because they don’t publish lies, but they don’t publish anything worthwhile either. Most of their, “stories,” are second hand accounts of something someone (who may or may not be credible) said on CNN, or how a politician or pundit got mocked on social media, and then given a title that implies the incident was more significant than it was. It’s difficult to judge something like that with an algorithm that simply looks for, “Credibility,” and, “Bias.”
Because they don’t want to take 3 seconds and block the user.
Many people disagree with the bot existing. Blocking it is just a surrender, downvotes show that the disagreement continues and lets others know it exists.
So jihad instead of blocking it? Cool, sounds totally worth it.
Jihad, civilised disagreement. Potayto, potahto
