Been out for a week or so but didn't see it posted. This is a great guide for mining in 4.1 for my fellow rock breakers, targeted at beginners but there is a lot of good info and it's broken up into chapters.

Introduction

Firstly, although the tone of this post may be somewhat critical I want to say that I do appreciate the thought behind creating the bot and the work that has gone into it. The idea of being more aware of media bias in the news we consume is a good one and I commend the folks who actively took a step to try and advance that cause. However, I believe that unfortunately the current solution might have the opposite effect.

Suggestion

My suggestion is to keep the factuality and trustworthiness ratings of the bot as while they are still somewhat problematic, they can at least be more objectively assessed and sourced. The bias rating, however, has two pretty major problems as far as I can see.

Reason One - Inconsistent Definitions

Left and right do not have consistent definitions to everyone, particularly in different regions. Something considered left in the US for example might be considered centre or right in other parts of the world. This means that people's read of the bias rating of the bot may be inaccurate.

Reason Two - Opaque and Contradictory Bias Analysis

Secondly and the major issue I have, is that the bias rating does not seem to have a consistent methodology and I have seen troubling inconsistencies in the justification given for certain ratings. That means we are potentially being misinformed and having the opposite than intended effect of trying to accurately account for potential bias in the sources of our news.

Example - BBC

The example that I looked into was the bias rating for the BBC, which the bot describes as centre left. However, if we look at the justification for this rating it seems contradictory, with most evidence pointing to it leaning right:

According to New Statesman's research, examining the impartiality of the BBC's reporting shows that they lean right certain areas, such as business, immigration, and religion...

...

When reporting general news, the BBC always sources its information and uses minimal loaded words in headlines...

Sounds like the BBC should be rated as centre right based on this analysis. However, the media bias folks go on to say this:

When it comes to reporting on the USA and, in particular, former President Donald Trump, there is a negative tone directed at Trump and his policies.

This point, referencing a single article which is debatably overly negative, seems to be sufficient justification for them to rate the whole source as left leaning.

If you check the reasoning for the rating, however, it mentions nothing about this anti Trump bias at all, instead stating:

Overall, we rate the BBC Left-Center biased based on story selection that slightly favors the left.

This assertion is not justified in any way in the analysis they have provided.

Conclusion

I understand that disagreeing with one particular rating isn't necessarily worthy of action in it's own right, but I think this example highlights a more fundamental problem with the rating system as a whole. If there is not a reasonable and consistent methodology followed, then the rating system itself is highly subject to individual biases. Therefore, I believe that by including this rating in all the news posts, we are lending credibility to an organisation which unfortunately does not seem to have earned it.

Thanks for taking the time to read my suggestion and I hope nobody takes this as an attack of any kind. This is a difficult problem and I appreciate any effort to solve it, I actually was feeling quite positive about the bot until I looked into how the ratings were actually done.

EDIT: Also, I hope this is the right community to provide this feedback. It seems the bot has blocked me so I'm not able to check the support link that it provides.

Back in the day, you had to be willing to do it yourself.

I thought this was a nice 10 minute recap of what the replication layer stuff is, the plans we know about from way back and where we're at now.