• dactylotheca@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    I don’t understand why people seem to hate this bot. I’ve seen commenters saying MBFC itself is biased but without actually providing any sources which is sort of ironic, and one bright spark vowed to downvote it every time because “they’re begging for donations”

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I’m not a fan of the format personally. It looks like crap on my client and takes up half the screen when the relevant information only really needs a line or two. I think the information is useful but I’m still on the fence about blocking it because it’s quite the eyesore.

      EDIT: This is what it looks like for reference

    • Deceptichum@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      You can view the examples of bias in the stickied mega thread.

      If you haven’t seen it, it’s because you haven’t tried to look.

      It very clearly has a Zionist bend, and will actively downgrade the rating for news sources critical of Israel.

    • AmidFuror@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      There are people here with a wide range of opinions held very strongly. So of course the bot is going to be a blessing to some and nefarious and evil to others. Apparently like the leader of Hamas.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      I mean how do you even source a claim like that? That said, MBFC messes up a lot. I mean how the hell is NYT left wing?

      • finley@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        If you actually go to the site, it explains its reasoning

        Also, it doesn’t say NYT, it’s “The Washington Post”, and it’s not “left-wing”, it says “left-center”

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          If you actually go to the site, it explains its reasoning

          Which disagrees with objective reality.

          Also, it doesn’t say NYT, it’s “The Washington Post”, and it’s not “left-wing”, it says “left-center”

          I was giving an example.

          • finley@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Which disagrees with objective reality.

            You’re free to provide evidence and make a counter argument to support this accusation.

            I was giving an example.

            An example of you lying, or an example of the fact you can’t read? An example of what, exactly, since the New York Times is also rated as “Left-Center”, and “left-wing” isn’t even a rating that MBFC uses?

            Please clarify

            • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Again, left-center is included under the general classification “left wing”, which NYT is absolutely not. Are you being willfully obtuse?

              • finley@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                No. It’s just that I can read. And your opinions have little to do with objective reality.

      • dactylotheca@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean how do you even source a claim like that?

        Even giving examples of this supposed bias would be better than essentially just going “they’re biased trust me bro”