A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
The tesseract Lemmy app, has a little overview from mediabiasfactcheck.com (MBFC). It seems like a clever way to foster a healthy community.
If you click on the ranking you get details.
EDIT: Sorry to stir up an old hornet's nest.
EDIT2: Commenters have some valid criticisms of MBFC. Even if there are flaws, I would like to celebrate all attempts at elevating the conversations we are having.
If you want to potentially sidestep some of people's frustrations you might consider just using the credibility rating and focusing on whether a group provides factual reporting, rather than left or right of center
You can also create a user experience that more carefully manages expectations of the feature by having it be opt in, but presenting the option to users when it becomes available. That gives you the opportunity to give a short blurb acknowledging its imperfections and also highlighting its potential value
As someone fairly to the left wing myself, the fact that lemmy is so left wing is both a blessing and a curse. I don't see Nazis around, but being in an echo chamber isn't great for your ability to engage with perspectives other than your own, and makes you succeptible to narratives that reinforce your existing views regardless of whether they're accurate
I'd love this feature, in spite of its flaws, but it does definitely have them. Its based on the US overton window, which will frustrate folks from other parts of the world who may already feel lemmy sometimes forgets the world beyond the US exists. And the US overton window is changing as a product of the trump administration which may warp mbfc results, which could honestly be really dangerous.
Focussing on the factuality and credibility might help you sidestep those problems and make a feature people would find less frustrating, potentially even to the point that you could make it opt out.
Generally I appreciate efforts to build healthier, less echo chambery discourse, thanks for the work you're doing ❤️
Yeah I had a similar thought to your first paragraph. I mostly use MBFC for the "factual reporting" rating, because it seems easier to be objective about.
Just to clarify, I don't develop any fediverse software, I wouldn't want to take any credit from those amazing people.
i think photon does this too
I removed it because I don't want my app to necessarily depend or be associated with any specific centralized external source, like MBFC. By adding it to my app, I'm implicitly supporting its use, which wasn't necessarily my goal.
EDIT2: Commenters have some valid criticisms of MBFC.
Here's another in my "making friends" series of posts.
Commenters DO NOT have valid criticisms of MBFC. They are universally wrong, have no idea how MBFC works, and are too lazy to look it up. The misinfo ghouls among them are happy to repeat lies over and over until people start to accept them.
Some of these people can be pretty convincing but I urge you to actually fact check their arguments. Most of these people are just parroting bullshit they saw someone else say. The "best" of these are basically artisanal, hand-crafted AI hallucinations: high-confidence, syntactically-correct nonsense. Don't put that glue on your pizza. If someone posts an MBFC link as evidence, click it and read it. Nearly every single time, the link they posted contradicts them and they just haven't read it.
And ask yourself why no one ever posts peer-reviewed research backing up their claims. It's a simple reason: it doesn't exist. Every single piece of academic research on MBFC says they're wrong. The MBFC conspiracy theorists can't just ignore that body of research because it's inconvenient -- they need a compelling reason why all research to date is wrong. For their claims to be true, it would require a massive conspiracy between academics, journalists, and media bias organizations because they are all in consensus about what makes good and bad news organizations. It's loopy, tinfoil hat bullshit.
Yeah, I've also looked into MBFC and found it was more grounded than what Lemmings were saying.
I always found it suspicious why people here would rather choose no fact checking than some. Is it the old "don't let perfection ruin a good plan" again or other motives? Hmm.
I generally think their overton window skews right and every once in a while I've seen some huge fumbles, but overall they're more pro establishment than anything else. The only thing I've ever seen that could even be seen as pushing misinformation is their bellingcat rating, where they gave them "mostly factual" because they lost a lawsuit IN RUSSIA about how they were making "libelous claims" about the MH17 shootdown and who was responsible because their quite rigorous research showed that the Russian government was lying. inb4 some .ml tankie comes to go "uhm actually bellingcat is cia
I think that very few of these arguments are being made in good faith. For some people, any bias monitor is a barrier to sharing propaganda as news. Others just don't understand how to use the site properly. Or use it in a really stupid way anyway. Like this:
Instead of:
Others are like, 'it's telling me what to think, man!' who don't seem to understand that those pages contain a wealth of information that you can include in your decision-making (or not). They've convinced themselves that it's presented as the one and only source of absolute truth, which is really just something they made up to be angry about. No one but them is making that claim.
There also isn't another free source that has that info in one place. There's no better place to quickly find news org ownership info, the country they're operating in (with links to info about press freedom in that country), and their history of factual reporting. But those people don't care -- they're just viscerally reacting to the ratings, not reading the reports.
You're right, defending Nazi sites doesn't make you friends, you're wrong that there's any peer review of the site though, either way.
I'm awarding you three demerits for a reply that doesn't make sense. Govern yourself accordingly.
Mbfc is funded and run by Nazis. You're defending a Nazi site. I personally wouldn't call you a Nazi over doing so in ignorance, but others might.
Can you site your sources?
As the person asking people to fact check the claims of weird conspiracy theorists, I'm gonna have to ask for your sources on that one.
Edit: For anyone wondering, MBFC is transparent about their funding sources.
Edit2: an MBFC conspiracy theorist just making shit up??? I'm shocked...
Is this the same media bias checking bot that thinks a Murdoch media owned news site was left leaning?
As a left-leaning Canadian, this seems crazy to me. There's not even a place for me on this chart.
It's crazy how normalized right-wing extremism is. Well, it does explain the state of things in the US, though.
I also don't love that is has least biased in the center. Bias is a trait that is on an almost entirely separate axis.
Yeah, as political compasses, in order to have some reasonableness, have left-right and authoritarian-libertarian, this needs another axis for bias. You can be a leftist organization that still reports on reality without bias. Being in favor of the status-quo is it's own form of bias.
Also the AP
Oh dear god not this argument again
Right, I almost forgot about the rage against the MBFC bot that went on for like MONTHS lmao. Seeing it downvoted to hell was hilarious though lol
Tbh I didn’t even mind what the bot was trying to do. I just remember opening what felt like every post and seeing dozens of lines taken up by the bot. I ended up just blocking it and cross-referencing with ground news myself.
Can you give the rundown on what happened for us newer people.
Some of the news and politics communities added an automatic comment to new posts that linked to fact checking information, and a big portion of the community lost their minds about it. A lot of people found it biased, obtrusive, or unnecessary, and it generated a lot of conflict between the people who liked it or felt neutral. It went through many iterations based on the feedback before being removed entirely.
The entire saga was fairly disruptive and everyone is glad it's over.
Oh. Thank you for the concise rundown.
MBFC does the opposite of elevate conversations. It's quite frankly a poison pill for conversations. People will apply their prejudices and alter their interpretations based on the 'bias check', typically before or instead of any critical thinking ~~or ant article.~~ of any article.
The last time the MBFC bot was going the user pushing it was very clearly aware of this dynamic. They also knew it was lumping everything to website source, despite authors and opinion pieces, for maximum damage.
From the test that was done with the bot that was not a good source. 1) American focus 2) too much room for debate on the ranking Here some discussion on it https://lemmy.world/post/18073070
I blocked the bot as soon as I learned how. The ratings are a joke - mostly because of its American bias.
Imagine thinking CNN is center-left 😂
In the Overton Window that is US politics, it is. But that’s because the damn window has been dragged so far to the right that facts themselves are “Liberal Marxism” now (oxymoronic as that label is).
Edit: And MBFC perpetuates that rightward movement. I prefer Ad Fontes, although it does also label CNN as center-left.
MBFC is bad. It supports the American overton window, which is, you know, now openly fascist.
Whatever the views are about MBFC, Tesseract integrated it better than LW's bot. If you don't like MBFC, it's just an option in your user settings to turn it off for Tesseract, whereas the bot caused a bunch of problems that weren't even related to concerns about accuracy and bias. Drive-by bots can be annoying, because it leads people to believe there's legit content where there isn't, and not every client respected LW's bot use of spoiler Markdown, so they ended up with a massive comment from it that dominated the screen.
Wow, I decided I would give MBFC a shot. You are greeted with an ad-infested experience with a giant start bar reminiscent of a malware site. After building up enough courage to click it I discovered it not only wanted my email but also my credit card.
After having to fight to see the article I wanted rated I just don't have the fortitude to the fight this horrible experience to probably be told that the following article is left center or left leaning bias.
While I will admit this was a not Fox News praising the Trump Admin, it has an extremely neutral tone and does nothing to pushback against the obviously clownish message that the Trump team provides.
For this reason it, is to me at least, right leaning. I guess I will never know what MBFC would rate it.
reminiscent of a malware site
Well, that's because it is malware.
it, is to me at least, right leaning
It's not right leaning.
It's disinformation malware whose sole purpose is to move the Overton window as far right as possible.
It labels anything short of outright fascism as far left.
Firefox and ublock are your friend.
This site doesn't rate articles. It rates news sources. So you just have to look up what they rated the post as.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/
These ratings appear to b based on US sensibilities and not the rest of the world. So everything skews more to the left than it really is.
is there an open source, decentralized alterntative to MBFC ?
I can't find one.
https://alternativeto.net/software/media-bias-fact-check/?license=opensource
That's really cool. Looks great too.