Comment

Because this is the first thing I think I’ve seen you post and blocking everything you disagree with seems sort of stupid?

I think the bot has issues, but I hardly agree that it’s posting misinformation. Incomplete? Imperfect? You bet. But that’s not “misinformation” in any commonly understood meaning. I think the intent of providing additional context on information sources is laudable.

As someone with such a distaste for misinformation, how would you suggest fixing it? That’s a much more useful discussion than “BAN THE THING I PERSONALLY AND SUBJECTIVELY THINK IS BAD!!!” You obviously think misinformation is a problem, so why not suggest a solution?

source

Sort:hotnew top

Krono@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Currently the bot’s media ratings come from just some guy, who is unaccountable and has an obvious rightwing bias.

If I were to suggest a fix, as you so rudely demanded, I would suggest making the ratings instead come from an open sourced and crowdsourced system. A system where everyone could give their inputs and have transparency, similar to an upvote/downvote system.

Such a system would take many hours to design and maintain, it is not something I personally am willing to contribute, nor would I ask it of any volunteers. This is why I believe the cleanest, easiest, and best solution is to simply ban the bot.

source
- geekwithsoul@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  
  Currently the bot’s media ratings come from just some guy, who is unaccountable and has an obvious rightwing bias.
  
  Wow! Talk about misinformation!!! mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/
  
  Image
  
  Or maybe you think they were bought and paid for by some nefarious source? Nope…
  
  Media Bias/Fact Check funding comes from reader donations, third-party advertising, and membership subscriptions. We use third-party advertising to prevent influence and bias, as we do not select the ads you see displayed. Ads are generated based on your search history, cookies, and the current web page content you are viewing. We receive $0 from corporations, foundations, organizations, wealthy investors, or advocacy groups. See details on funding.
  
  …I would suggest making the ratings instead come from an open sourced and crowdsourced system. A system where everyone could give their inputs and have transparency, similar to an upvote/downvote system.
  
  Such a system would take many hours to design and maintain, it is not something I personally am willing to contribute, nor would I ask it of any volunteers.
  
  Thank you for at least providing an iota of something constructive. It’s an interesting idea, and there is academic research that shows it might be possible. But the problem is then in a world already filled with state- and corpo-sponsored organized misinformation campaigns, how does any crowdsourced solution avoid capture and infiltration from the very sources of misinformation it should be assessing? Look at the feature on Twitter and how often that is abused. Then you’d need a fact checker for your fact checker.
  
  source
  - Krono@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Wow so you’re telling me mbfc isn’t staffed by volunteers, instead they are trying to get paid by subs and ad revenue?
    
    The more I learn about mbfc the worse it gets.
    
    source
    Rooki@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Like, any other fact checking site?
    
    source