The Tesseract Lemmy app shows a news source ranking from MBFC
-
No. And there never should be. And here's why. Bear with me for a moment but consider this. Part of the problem with this sort of thing is that people want their hands held. They want to be told what to think. Not to think critically for themselves. No matter how well intentioned. Such systems will always be sought to be abused. To manipulate people and their opinions. And at best they will always be subject to bias and blindness. The truly keep them from ever being universally useful.
Basic training and education in critical thinking skills will be far more to help people. Than relying on an app no matter how well intentioned to tell them how to think about something.
-
These are all valid points but they don't preclude the existence of an open-source alternative to MBFC, which is what the commenter you replied to was asking.
-
Any software intended to cause harm is malware. MBFC is software intended to cause harm. MBFC is malware.
-
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).
-
I never implied that it did. Go ahead and make one. It will always do as much or more damage than it will ever do good. That's the point. There's bias in everything. Trusting someone else's bias to accurately convey the bias of something else, isn't making you more informed or a better consumer of media. Not in any meaningful way. Not in the way basic critical thinking skills can. It's just a game of bias telephone. And if you know how the game telephone goes. It should give you an indication to its efficacy.
It's not hard. There are some basic steps anyone can take to get started. Do not tolerate those who are intolerant of who someone is. Whether it's ethnicity or sexuality. If accusations are being made against groups. Especially ones that you have very little experience or contact with. Put yourself in that situation. Think about how you would go about things. Because that's more than likely how they would as well. And for everything else, especially things that are either hard science or factually based. Simply differ to the people who make it their life to study and understand those things. But never give their opinions outside of that field any weight.
Just those few basic things can illuminate a lot of bias and malintent. Leave you far more guarded and protected against misinformation and bias in the future. Which along with basic intellectual curiosity. Something most people have largely never valued. Will serve you far better than any app. Because the Insidious part about misinformation. Is that there's often some amount of Truth to it. Whether it's wrong because of malice or because of bias. Critical thinking and intellectual curiosity will always better serve you.
-
There is too much information to process for any one person to just use their critical thinking skills to fact check a news organization as large as CNN, much less every major news organization. No, it's not enough to teach critical thinking skills and hope every person is able to discern bias in the media they consume, because you're asking for extremely domain-specific skills and legwork that a single consumer just isn't capable of.
-
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 think photon does this too
-
Held hands? No. Not everyone has the time, energy or training to evaluate a site's trust comprehensively. I want to see what other people think in case they spot what I missed. I also want to see if people are even taking about the site and why.
I mean, can you imagine? There are so many sites out there I can't spend three hours fact-checking one for the sake of replying to an argument. And then all that work going to waste for the benefit of nobody else.
-
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.
-
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:
- Look at the ratings.
- If something strikes you as odd, run around screaming like your hair's on fire.
Instead of:
- Look at the ratings.
- If something strikes you as odd, read the part of the report that explains the rating.
- Decide how important those things are to you and whether it's a deal-breaker.
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.
-
Not really. No more than in the past. The difference is the 24/7 firehose of propaganda and indoctrination. The solution is to step away from the firehouse. Focus on the things that actually impact you. Or that you can influence. If someone is telling you to be afraid of people that you don't know, have never met, or ever had contact with. Ignore them and tune them out. It's legitimately that simple.
-
that could be true, if I didn't double check the sources. If that is how you would be doing it then sure, but I use it as a guideline not a rule, and check for facts after.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 -
Can you site your sources?
