Comment on Why are people downvoting the MediaBiasFactChecker not?
otp@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks agoAnd yeah it’s rather they use whatever critical thinking they’re going to use on the source itself rather than have a bot claiming to do it for them.
How does one go about doing that for a brand new source each time they encounter one?
With the bot, the critical thinking needs to be done far fewer times. It’s the same bot with the same source. Understand the source’s bias and credibility, and then you’ll have an idea of how to interpret its results. Not so without the bot – whatever process needs to be done for each new source every time a new source is encountered.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
That’s not how that works. You’re assuming the people behind MBFC are operating on an objective scale, even if you don’t like it. But they clearly are not. This isn’t a case of everything being shifted to the right. They don’t abide by their own rubric. So there’s nothing left but whatever they subjectively rate.
A single arbiter of truth and fact is only good as long as it’s actually an objective source. Which has been thoroughly disproven.
If you cannot understand why it’s dangerous to rely on an unreliable arbitrator of fact and bias then I can’t help you.
otp@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
No, I’m not. I’m saying “If we know that they’re flawed, we can take their flaws into consideration. But if we have to look at each source independently, we need to do a new investigation for each new source”.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
By what magic?
otp@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Many users here, for example, have described the lens through which we should view MBFC.