It pops up all the time, it’s a waste of time and I’m sure it has been used countless of times to discard some piece of information. It doesn’t add up anything productive to the comments, people who comment don’t even say anything they actually think they just “did you know that MBFC says this so it has to be truth?” I could go on but I think you get the idea.
Those comments sound great. Why are they an issue? Many if the best comments are basically data not personal point of view
MBFC is like 100% vibes masquarading as actual data. If we had some objective measure of a news source, I would welcome it, but that’s a fantasy.
Yeah, it’s a tough problem to solve but I don’t think for it’s a terrible source for getting a feel when someone drops a link from an institution you’ve never heard of. No one really has the time to fact check every article or explore every institution. Agreed the website, and concept, has more than a few flaws
Way to admit that you let yourself to be propagandized. You should always read news critically. It’s easier to assume that everything is trying to push something, than to rely on a fancy graph some random dipshit on the internet created and then read it uncritically
What a way to admit you’re not realistic about the amount of time you have and how long things take
I never said I didn’t read things critically. That not fact checking which takes time beyond noticing bias and logical issues
The contradiction is so glaring that I’m not sure if you read what you write as you heavily imply it
If it just ranked an outlets political opinion as left, right or center: no one would really be upset. It’s their effort to rank by credibility, and labeling centrisim as “unbiased” is fundamentally asinine; not “a few flaws”.
There are definitely more axis that could be added but the center isn’t unbiased. The left and right tend to be pretty biased. Plenty in the center is too. Where are you seeing the center labeled as unbiased?
The word “center” implies that it’s less biased/unbiased to the majority of people. It’s what average people see as a “safe” source and allows them to read it uncritically. Media literacy is not as widespread as you think it as, as demonstrated with your handling of this subject. Why are you so obtuse about it?
The fact that you think its a good idea shows that you believe, even if you are not aware, that your positions are neutral when they’re not. If you are not investigating your own bias why should we bother with comments telling you what is or isn’t biased? All that’s signaling to you is if something is “good” or “bad” because your position is “good” and not biased at all.
I, and others with my perspective, understand that everything has a bias, and you need to be able to read something critically to find that bias. These bias checking sites are not doing that, they are only looking to ensure people who share your view, the natural or default perspective, or the neoliberal perspective, do not read the “wrong” content.
Interesting comment
I have my biases, and I struggle reading most news sources because of theirs. Reading critically is very important and fact checks can help educate people on how to do that. Hopefully without picking up their biases.
So, people should waste time reading a source just because someone has a lot of energy flooding the zone so they can see what the real biases are?
Nothing you’ve said helps justify why adding more information is worse. People can still do your reading critically thing as well
I’m getting more suspicious of you after this emotional plea. What sorts sources are you upset have these comments, do you have some examples?
Because the additional information holds some random dipshits opinion on what is trustworthy and what not. When you see the “additional information” to show that something is trustworthy you read it uncritically
Oh wow. You believe trustworthy means you shouldn’t read something uncritically? What an interesting world you live in
Yes i believe the majority of people that assume something is declared trustworthy read it uncritically. If you read my other comment it’s easier to assume everything is not trustworthy, so it forces you to read it critically. What an naive world you live in to not see this
The idea that something is not biased based on the fact that “it shouldn’t be neither too lefty nor too righty” is absurd, it has a bias for “centrists” who believe they live on the fence but then you hear them speak they are rightists. I could go on, it’s basically trash, low effort strawman to discredit possible factual information.
I see you don’t let emotion cloud your judgements…
Signed a disgusting centerist
Ooooh. This is lemmy.ml, oops. I deleted ask anything from here since this group was tiring. But now I can guess why people are upset about the comment even though no one took the time to answer and give a few examples… they just took time to say how upsetting the site was