this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
165 points (96.1% liked)

196

16490 readers
1921 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I don’t like bots in general. I find them annoying AF

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago

The internet is full of enough bots without making a bot for every dumbass thing on the fediverse, but I guess we really are reddit 2.0

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I like how everyone hates this Bot! I don't really care about this Bot itself, but it's funny how no one likes the Bot and yet they still trying to make it work somehow :P

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago

gives off the same 'solution looking for a problem' vibes as corporate marketing around ai lmao

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

so weird. the people don't like MBFC.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago (7 children)

I honestly don't understand why people are downvoting the media bias bot. From what I've seen, it is pretty accurate. Is it that people see the comment count go up and expect a human comment to interact with, only to be disappointed and then downvote the bot?

If so, I'd suggest Lemmy/Mbin to not could comments made by bot accounts towards the total comment count.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

I don't like it because it's placing an objective statement on a subjective matter. it's also apparently run by a single person (which is understandable given what it needs to do) but I just don't like the vibes that gives off.

I think it'd be a lot better if it just stated objective things (e.g. where their funding comes from, the corporate relationships, country they're based in)

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

The Bot is wildly inaccurate as other people have pointed out. Even having the idea of potentially one person verifying the veracity of all news media is plainly ludicrous.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I honestly don't understand

Could have just stopped there tbh.

From what I've seen, it is pretty accurate

It's not. It's the hobby of a right wing Zionist masquerading as a neutral and authorative arbiter of facts and bias.

For example, it rates The Guardian, Fox News and Breitbart as equally factual.

Is it that people see the comment count go up and expect a human comment to interact with, only to be disappointed and then downvote the bot?

That too, yes. Personally I have it blocked and get annoyed by there being no comments in stead.

If so, I'd suggest Lemmy/Mbin to not could comments made by bot accounts towards the total comment count.

Or just get rid of the biased and counterfactual bias and fact checker.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

MBFC equates respectable outlets like The Guardian and literal nazi rag Breitbart

It's propaganda masquerading as impartiality

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

For me I liked it at first but ended up blocking it after it started doing "more stories like" which revealed that it was clearly there to turn a profit.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago

I downvoted it when it showed clear bias, which was most of the comments I saw.

[–] [email protected] 65 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It might have something to do with their steadfast insistence on rating literal Zionist propaganda outlets that spread straight up lies that have been debunked hundreds of times over as “extremely credible”.

Just ignoring reality like that tends to hurt the credibility of a credibility meter.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Wikipedia's entries note that such outlets aren't much credible.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And don’t get me wrong, I have a shit ton of gripes about The Guardian as a trans person, but rating its factual reporting as “mixed” while the NYT is “high” is either incompetence or an agenda. I think they bank on Americans not being familiar with what international papers are reputable.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

Absolutely. And also banking on both Americans and non-Americans to be unaware of the extreme pro-zionist, pro-cop, and pro-establishment bias of the NYT as well as the lies they keep spreading as a result.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Didn’t it get removed after people voted to kill it? I haven’t seen it lately.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

It has been removed recently from [email protected] and [email protected] following a poll