I know MediaBiasFactCheck is not a be-all-end-all to truth/bias in media, but I find it to be a useful resource.

It makes sense to downvote it in posts that have great discussion – let the content rise up so people can have discussions with humans, sure.

But sometimes I see it getting downvoted when it’s the only comment there. Which does nothing, unless a reader has rules that automatically hide downvoted comments (but a reader would be able to expand the comment anyways…so really no difference).

What’s the point of downvoting? My only guess is that there’s people who are salty about something it said about some source they like. Yet I don’t see anyone providing an alternative to MediaBiasFactCheck…

  • Hegar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Just block it and move on already. Your disagreement is hardly worth this crusade.

    That’s not sufficient.

    A private trust assessing company shouldn’t be given free space in an open public forum as though it’s assessments we’re something the general public should be aware of. If you trust it you can go seek it’s assessment off site. But this company shouldn’t be allowed to spam the fediverse of all places.

    • finley
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      By that logic, no privately owned media company would be able to post links here at all. Because your description pretty much describes all of them too, from the AP to CNN to Fox News.

      And why should you get to set the standards for what everyone else sees? If that’s what you want, start your own instance and ban this bot. But this bot was put in place by the instance admins, and they get to do what they want on their own server. You not liking it or happening to disagree with it gives you no right to tell them what to do.