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 💖

  • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Oh, lovely. Ministry of Truth Bots…

    This is predicated on the assumption that those organizations are neutral arbitrators of facts, but they aren’t.

    They might have a better gauge on reality than OAN, or PatriotEagleNews.ru, but that doesn’t mean platform moderators should present them as if they are a source of universal truth.

    People can be critical of posts, comments, and their sources, without the heavy hand of moderators using a privatized Ministry of Truth.

    We don’t even have to look very far back to see how platform level “fact checking” systems are used and abused to silence and suppress information that goes against mainstream narratives or is viewed as politically damaging.

    • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      43
      ·
      5 months ago

      Its better to have some “fact checking” than the “trust me bro” system.

      We all know all “fact checking” systems have humans behind it, those humans can have biases, dislikes or do mistakes. But thats the reason why we should not have such system is not good. Its the viewers discretion to believe into the fact/bias checks of the given page. We are just giving our best effort to simplify the view.

      Then i give you the recommendation to block the bot, if you dont like it.

      • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        You’re putting your moderators hands on the scale and that far outweighs any community/user input into the validity of information discussed here.

        On a completely unrelated note, did you know that Hamas went on a baby beheading spree on Oct. 7?

        I know this because I read it on MSN.com, and your MediaBiasFactCheck said that MSN.com has a HIGH FACTUAL RATING

        Anyone is free to rip apart my comment, and that source, but that task becomes more difficult when bots that have been anointed as bias and fact checkers, contradict them in any way, or are themselves biased.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      MiniTrue would just remove wrongthink, so that’s hyperbolic.

      I don’t love relying on this one source of fact/bias checking so much, but the general idea of not allowing unrestricted use of whatever source without warning is good.