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.

  • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    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.

    • porcoesphino@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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?

      • KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Nothing you’ve said helps justify why adding more information is worse

        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

        • porcoesphino@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Oh wow. You believe trustworthy means you shouldn’t read something uncritically? What an interesting world you live in

          • KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            57 minutes ago

            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