• 4 Posts
  • 61 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 12th, 2023

help-circle






  • Glad they’re pushing urn as a comeback mechanic even more with the slightly easier deposit point.

    Also changing the comeback benefit to only kicking in at a 8% soul gap makes sense, was kind of dumb that having a 1k difference had them kick in lol.

    Lot of other changes too, haven’t had a chance to read them all.








  • Like I kinda said in my last paragraphs you’ve got fair points that it may be good enough for what it’s being used for here (despite it’s clear biases) since it’s not being used to disallow posts. Although other commenters have said it has a pro-Zionist bias as well which is honestly more concerning than things I’ve pointed out. Haven’t had time to check beyond the ADL one.

    Overall my main issue is the community wasn’t really asked if one was desired, which one should be used, how it should be used, etc. Because of that and the lack of good response by the poster I’ve already decided to follow other world news communities instead of this one.


  • I think the importance of American bias is overstated. What matters is that they’re transparent about it. That bias also impacts the least important thing they track.

    It affects the overall credibility rating of the source, how is that the least important thing? They also seem to let it affect the factual reporting rating despite not clearly stating that in the methodology.

    Based on MBFC’s [methodology](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/), it’s actually impossible for editorial bias alone to impact the credibility rating without having additional problems

    This is only true specifically when you’re thinking about it as a great source can’t have its credibility rating lowered. A not great factual source can get a high credibility rating if it’s deemed centrist enough which again is arbitrary based on the (effectively) 1 guys personal opinion.

    High Credibility Score Requirement: 6

    Example 1

    Factual Reporting Mixed: 1

    No left/right bias: 3

    Traffic High: 2

    Example 2

    Factual Reporting Mostly Factual: 2

    No left/right bias: 3

    Traffic Medium: 1

    See how weighing credibility on a (skewed) left/right bias metric waters this down? Both of these examples would get high credibility.

    On top of that, none of this impacts this community at all. It could be a problem if the standard here was ‘highest’ ratings exclusively, but it isn’t.

    That’s a fair point and I did state in my original post that despite my own feelings I’d be open to something like this if the community had been more involved in the process of choosing one/deciding one is necessary and also if we had the bots post clearly call out it’s biases, maybe an explanation of its methodology and the inherent risks in it.

    The way it’s been pushed from the mod first without polling the community and seeing the reaction to criticism some of which was constructive is my main issue here really.


  • I’m not going to die on the intercept hill here I’m fine with the fact that even though they fired the person it’s a stain on their record so sure let’s say that rating is fine.

    It was one of the first 3 I checked so I’m sure I’ll find more that are problematic when I have a chance to look because it’s their methodology that’s biased. Also the other 2 I pointed out are clearly not correct.

    Got rebuttals for any of my criticisms about the methodology?


  • What you’re basically saying, perhaps without realizing it, is that bias ratings shouldn’t be given at all.

    What I’m saying is that on a world news community we shouldn’t be using a US based left/right. What that should be should be voted on by the community if the mods insist we need to have some sort of fact checker like this which I disagree is needed.

    I don’t know why FAIR is being rated as “High” instead of “Very High” by MB/FC but I don’t see this as some kind of overwhelming issue. The Intercept ranking has an explanation in the report and you should read it but it comes down to the fact that they’re known to only cover certain stories, they’re known to repress journalists, and they’ve been previously caught with writers that were making stuff up. Despite all of that they’re still being rated “mostly factual”, so again I’m not seeing this as an overwhelming issue.

    The reason FAIR doesn’t is because MB/FC downgrades sources if it (arbitrarily based on the US right skewed Overton window) decides a source is left/right bias even if there has never been a failed fact check. For The intercept it was literally 1 reporter and they retracted all bogus statements, I could see that being 2nd rating then.

    Again the 3 sources I mentioned we’re literally the first 3 I checked, it’s not a small issue with MB/FC it’s the fact that the methodolgy downgrades the factual rating if the source isn’t as centrist as the (effectively) 1 guy that runs the website wants the source to be. What number of incorrect ratings would make you decide this is a terrible checker? Cause with some time I’m sure I could come up with any reasonable target given.

    So the ADL is ranked the same as FAIR. Seems consistent. You’re also overstating the Wikipedia article, Wikipedia only considers them unreliable on the Palestinian Conflict. The ADL is still perfectly fine (with them) for other things.

    Didn’t overstate I specifically mentioned twice what it was basing that off of. Also I don’t see how that would be consistent when 1 source has never failed a fact check and the other has been deemed unreliable on both the Palestinian conflict and on anti-sentism. How should both of those be the same rating?

    There probably isn’t a fact checker out there that’s going to be perfect and also free but that doesn’t mean we shoehorn a crappy one in here without putting massive disclaimers clearly calling out the biases it has.





  • TrippyFocus@lemmy.mltoWorld News@lemmy.worldMedia Bias Fact Check - Automation
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I wont disagree that there should be a ranking for using loaded language but combining it with the factuality ranking twists what the ranking means since to the average person they’re going to read that as how accurate the facts are.

    It should be its own separate rating from factuality. Again if we’re going to have to have a bot like this put clear disclaimers and ideally find a better one than this.