Hello World, As many of you have probably noticed, there is a growing problem on the internet when it comes to undisclosed bias in both amateur and professional reporting. While not every outlet can be like the C-SPAN, or Reuters, we also believe that it’s impossible to remove the human element from the news, especially when it concerns, well, humans.

To this end, we’ve created a media bias bot, which we hope will keep everyone informed about WHO, not just the WHAT of posted articles. This bot uses Media Bias/Fact Check to add a simple reply to show bias. We feel this is especially important with the US Election coming up. The bot will also provide links to Ground.News, as well, which we feel is a great source to determine the WHOLE coverage of a given article and/or topic.

As always feedback is welcome, as this is a active project which we really hope will benefit the community.

Thanks!

FHF / LemmyWorld Admin team 💖

  • QuantumSpecter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think the bot is crap based on this: The Guardian Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [Medium]

    The guardian is one of the best newspapers on the planet and published content exposing such as the Panama Papers.

    • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Thats your opinion. Thats the whole reason we added the bot. To give people a second opinion, if they need to trust it or even read it. Is on your own responsibility.

      • Krauerking@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        People like quick answers and barely even read the articles. All you are doing is giving ammunition to those types to easily dismiss anything and drag the conversation because of a private credibility rating.

        It’s a bad idea.

        • Talisman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Agreed, just came back to Lemmy and I see some wannabe Snopes spamming every post with Authority

  • morphballganon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Bot: Hmm this article reflects reality, thus it is biased to the left.

    Using charged language like that constitutes disinformation and is reprehensible. Imagine if viewers started disregarding a source on account of your bot declaring it biased.

    Shameful.

  • Noxy@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I hate this and have already blocked the bot.

    Comments are obscenely long, and I see no reason to trust your source.

  • Krauerking@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think this is so stupid.

    I swear it’s a “centrist” libertarian idealism that you are gonna find all the biases of the publication so that you feel superior for not falling for any of them.

    To a degree things should make you feel an emotional response and to not and think yourself better for not, makes you falsely superior.

    I get it for making sure that propaganda isn’t posted but that’s more of what general community moderation is for is it not?

    I dunno, I definitely don’t think it should be so prominent. I barely think it’s needed. Maybe people could call to the bot to check for them? But putting privately decided political leaning on every post just seems like needless segregation that allows for people to immediately ignore that and the conversation that can be had from it.

  • solrize@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Putting some site in charge of determining what news is valid just means that site controls the bias. I like the wide mix that we get now. Partisan commenters are more of a problem than bias in the sources. It’s best when there are informed commenters who point out issues. Sometimes we have them, though not always.

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This is a bad bot using bad reasoning and it’s only going to hurt the state of discourse. You’re not countering dishonesty, you’re encouraging it.

  • PlantJam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The “footer” section is very long, and the spoiler tags don’t seem to do anything on the Boost app. This makes the bot comment take up an entire screen on mobile.

    • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah that is sadly bad implemented on the apps.

      We put the “footer” that could go into a spoiler into a spoiler.

  • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Reporting the bot will not get you what you want/expect. If you don’t like it, you’re welcome to block it.

  • HBK@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Mods, I appreciate this bot!

    Deciphering media bias is tough, and finding 1 site that will ‘perfectly’ identify biases is an impossible task, but at the minimum having this bot show up on posts ‘gets people thinking’ about the credibility of their news sources.

    MBFC doesn’t have to be the ultimate arbitrator either. If it is missing something about a specific article people can call it out in the comments. At the end of the day, the worst thing it does is add more data about a news source and I’m not gonna complain about that.

  • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    The amount of people that can’t handle a super basic rating of a news outlet is chilling.

    I know and accept that I rely on biased media, because all of it is biased. It’s media, not scientific papers (which are also often biased btw.). Having a bias does not automatically make it bad.

    I care a lot about factual reporting tho. And I want to see the same news from different POVs, with different biases, because they will highlight different things. If you don’t, mute the bot, get your daily dose of whatever propaganda you like so much and stfu.

    And no, this is not ‘centrism’. I’m pretty sure most people who use that word don’t even know what it means. Historically, centrism describes a moderate left-wing view. Centrists are the center of left.

  • ccunning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I love the info it provides. I agree with many here that it’s too long. I think putting everything behind a spoiler tag that simply shows the rating would be a step in the right direction.

    • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Everything that can be hid behind a spoiler is already in there. The rest is partially because of an agreement with MBFC.

          • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            Ty for clarifying this.

            I think it’s a bad move to automatically throw mbfc links under every post. It will cause people not to engage with the substance of a link and instead provide a (literal) shortcut to that links trustworthiness. Further, mbfc itself has a bias against Palestine as other replies have pointed out among other markers of a problematic source of truth.

            There is no need for an alternative to mbfc either, because even if there existed some site which perfectly aligned with the political moment and lemmy world position on that moment it would still be bad idea to have a bot replying to every thread with weather the mods agree or not.

            A better way to implement what this new practice seems to be aimed towards is to drop the pretense of impartiality, develop a platform and line and use the mod tools against people who don’t align with it.

            • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              We alligned with the mods. Thus we activated it only on certain communities.

              There is sadly required or the “discussion” will end like a bomb hit the comments.

              With a third party they can at least have a reference and wikipedia + ground news

      • ccunning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Another idea I’ve been thinking about that would help get the wall of text “out of the way”…:

        If the credibility is “High” or higher, have the bot downvote itself to allow other comments to float to the top

        If it’s “Mostly Factual” or lower, have the bot upvote itself to help call attention to the possible issue.

        …alternatively, if “High” or higher, wait for the first reply before having the bot comment.

        I don’t know if any of this is even possible with bots; just spitballing…

        • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The wall of text we will reduce in the next update. The others we will discuss with the team.