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…

  • tyler@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    There isn’t a single link or source for literally any of these claims in any of the comments. So yeah I’m still pretty sure it’s just people making shit up until they can back up a claim, even one.

      • tyler@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not if they don’t provide a link to the news source they’re talking about. So yeah, still no proof, source, nothing. Pretty clear it’s your bias at this point.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          So you’re too lazy to check the cross reference of BBC and the Ayn Rand Institute on MBFC and too lazy to go to their websites and you want to blame me for not giving you the simplest links ever?

          Did you press F to doubt when they tried to teach you 1+1 in 1st grade too?

          • tyler@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            You make a claim, you source it. That’s how debates (and literally any science at all) work dumbass.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              No. You source stuff that’s not generally available. Academic papers aren’t out there sourcing the existence of the universe. Asking for easily available stuff to be sourced is a form of trolling.

              • tyler@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                26 days ago

                It clearly isn’t easily available if you can’t even provide a single fucking instance of it now, is it? Sourcing what you’re fucking talking about is how debates work you fucking dickhead. This has nothing to do with a bibliography. It’s about putting a fucking link referencing the material you’re alluding to.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  26 days ago

                  No I could. I just refuse to do your 2 second Google search for you.

                  Edit, to be clear I refuse to do several Google searches for you when the recommended course of action is to check their website for yourself