Comment on Why are people downvoting the MediaBiasFactChecker not?
Carrolade@lemmy.world 4 months agoYeah, it’s just owned by one dude named Dave, funded mainly through user donations.
Comment on Why are people downvoting the MediaBiasFactChecker not?
Carrolade@lemmy.world 4 months agoYeah, it’s just owned by one dude named Dave, funded mainly through user donations.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Oh because that’s better?
Carrolade@lemmy.world 4 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 4 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 4 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.