Comment on Ban the MBFC bot

• geekwithsoul@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Like, any other fact checking site?

      source