this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
4 points (100.0% liked)

Lemmy.world Support

3233 readers
129 users here now

Lemmy.world Support

Welcome to the official Lemmy.world Support community! Post your issues or questions about Lemmy.world here.

This community is for issues related to the Lemmy World instance only. For Lemmy software requests or bug reports, please go to the Lemmy github page.

This community is subject to the rules defined here for lemmy.world.

To open a support ticket Static Badge


You can also DM https://lemmy.world/u/lwreport or email report@lemmy.world (PGP Supported) if you need to reach our directly to the admin team.


Follow us for server news ๐Ÿ˜

Outages ๐Ÿ”ฅ

https://status.lemmy.world/



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This bot is spreading misinformation.

This bot is spreading rightwing propaganda.

This bot is spamming every post.

This bot is consistently downvoted.

This bot degrades the user experience.

Please ban it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That doesn't address the issue of mbfc adding it's own bias in, which is what most have an issue with.

It just focuses on their factual response and even ends with

there is an issue with domain level checks like this as not every piece is held to same internal standards

[โ€“] Varyk@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

it explicitly addresses the baseless accusations of internal bias impacting ratings.

that's the very point of these independent studies.

if mbfc checkers or other fact-checkers allowed their biases into their ratings, those findings would differ from other news fact-checking sources that managed to rate news sources more objectively.

since their findings range from very similar to nearly identical to other credible news fact-checking sources and importantly there is still zero evidence of their "own bias" affecting their ratings, there's no base for the accusations.

just rilers rilin'.

[โ€“] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 months ago

They ignored the part of

MBFC Credibility Rating:

Which is where the founder loves to play around with ratings based on their own biases.

The study you linked too goes off of the factual rating which the founder usually doesn't touch.

It's amazing how many they will say factual no failed fact checks then immediately doc rating because of their bias. Especially if publication doesn't like Israel