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 💖

        • irotsoma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          3 months ago

          I mean the data is all there for you to look at and experts who have looked at it have agreed it is minimally biased. If you want something that is unbiased, then you’re out of luck, every human has bias. If you believe all experts are biased, you’re also right, but they’re way less biased than someone being paid to be biased. So like everything, you can’t wait forever for perfection, and anyone who tells you they are perfect and totally unbiased is likely the most biased, anyway.

          • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            What data? They have a methodology but don’t make any of what they actually complie for rates public.

            It’s a bias rating system based on 1 guys bias

            • irotsoma@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              3 months ago

              The data is there, too. The data is there for every rated organization. It has the history and funding of the individual media plus links to related media organizations that are funded and controlled by the same sources. It has political activity and endorsements made by the organization. And it has a list of failed fact checks and other related issues which are links to external fact checkers. If you read the methodology, this is the data it uses for each rating and all of it is there.

              • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                16
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                They have that listed but they have big bias when doing the final conclusion and overall ranking.

                As others have pointed out some sources mbfc don’t like will have high fact checking with no failures, but then lower credibility ratings.

                • irotsoma@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  14
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  But the information is all there for you to make your own decision. What other outlets are there that have 0 bias? At least this one has all the info gathered and even if you take the ratings themselves with a grain of salt, it is the best source available at the moment.

                  As I mentioned above, there’s no such thing as an unbiased person, product, or organization. You take what is least biased, apply common sense, and consume responsibly. No one is going to force feed you all the information without bias on any subject, even if they do their best to be unbiased. Expecting perfection or nothing at all, gives you nothing at all in almost all aspects of life.

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    After seeing the comment on a few posts, the length is really bothering me. I don’t want to block the bot since it’s useful information. What about a single line of text with a link to “read more”?

    Example with explanations:

    404 Media is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check. (change Media Bias Fact Check to a link that goes to a post explaining what they do, the reason for the bot, and a link to their donation page)

    Check the bias and credibility of this article on ground.news. (change “this article” to be a link instead of displaying link in plain text)

    How it might look:

    404 Media is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

    Check the bias and credibility of this article on ground.news.

    • rhythmisaprancer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      the length is really bothering me

      I think this is my main challenge. It seems a little intrusive. Maybe I just read a bit from The Guardian and don’t need to see the full monty again.

    • PlantJam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Another idea. What about not posting the comment when the rating is “high credibility”?

      • irotsoma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Because then you don’t know if the bot is not working or is behind or if the post is actually credible. Better to have it on everything, though it definitely could put less info on high credibility posts if it can’t be condensed across the board.

        • PlantJam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s a great point that I hadn’t considered. Posting on every post also keeps it neutral instead of seeming to only target certain sources.

  • Krauerking@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 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
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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.

  • Noxy@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    I hate this and have already blocked the bot.

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

    • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      3 months ago

      Thats yours, we endoresed every to block it when you dont like it.

  • QuantumSpecter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 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
      8
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      3 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
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 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
          14
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

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

          • Krauerking@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Seriously people seem built on the idea that authority to make claims about anything confidently comes from looking at a Wikipedia article or ai breakdown for 5 seconds. It’s making me think they need to be deplatformed just like any other conspiracy theories on the right.

      • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s an interesting suggestion, however, I can see a few potential challenges:

        • The methodology is determined by Wikipedia editors’ consensus alone. It’s unclear what the ultimate basis for inclusion/exclusion may be, or whether there is a uniform standard applied.

        • The list is far less comprehensive than MBFC and other rating sites.

        • The scope/purpose of the Wikipedia list is very different from ours. Although we are both ultimately interested in factual, verifiable truth, news/current event aggregation is not the same purpose as encyclopedic archiving.

        • The list is sometimes too granular, and sometimes too broad to be useful for live content moderation. For example, some sources are categorized differently based on the type of content, and others are grouped together.

        We would want to discuss and navigate these issues prior to incorporating this list into our communities.

      • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Could just hardcode it and let the community voice their opinions on additions/changes

        While I think the current method is a great idea, there’s already people complaining

        • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          3 months ago

          But then the issue arises what the people complain, the human bias.

          Because the user x from instance b accuses the user y from instance a be a bigot because they added SomeRandomNewsPage as biased into there. And it repeats and repeats.

          So we chose to use the available option to use MBFC and ground.news for 2 seperate options.

          We all know the downside of a human maintained list / service (like MBFC) because you can not remove the human part.

  • PlantJam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 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
      5
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah that is sadly bad implemented on the apps.

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

    • AwesomeLowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The guy is a Trump / Musk supporter, he’s half the problem as it is.

      While I have criticized Trump in the past, I have also objected to some of the efforts to impeach or convict him on dubious legal theories.

      Yeah, those 34 duuuuubious felony convictions!

      • solrize@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        Turley has written a lot about the NY trial and his analysis looked ok to me. IANAL of course. But, those convictions didn’t seem to change Trump’s polling noticeably. We will see what happens with Harris.

  • morphballganon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 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.

      • morphballganon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        You’re right, it just copies a right-wing human’s opinion, and blurts it out in a format that takes way too much space, and pretends to be without bias.

        You know, ban material.

  • clearedtoland@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    Love this! There are a couple of extensions that do similar around the web but something similar for social circles was missing. Great solution.

  • HBK@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    3 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.

    • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      3 months ago

      Thanks! MBFC isnt perfect, its made by humans and in their free time.

          • Krauerking@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

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

            So this wasn’t true huh?

            Cause people are trying to give you feedback and the response from you guys have been.

            Well we don’t care what you think! We are doing this no matter what!

            • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              22
              ·
              3 months ago

              Cause people are trying to give you feedback …

              The feedback is “MBFC BAD, DELETE IT, ITS A THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY”

              No improvement idea? No… thats NOT feedback, thats just crying around.

              Something like MBFC NEEDS to be here, not all mods can fact check each and every news page and inform the users with it. ( This would probably get the same shitstorm like this because “THE MOD XYZ FACT CHECK IS BAD, BAN HIM, HE IS A THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY” will come up too )

              So what would you recommend? That is doable for free and no one dislikes it? ( Deleting the bot is NOT an option )

              If you have a better Fact Check page you trust let me know, i would LOVE to implement that into the bot.
              We were already thinking about making a “public” open source github repo where people could contribute their fact checks and trusted people review it. ( BUT this will get the same shitstorm like the previous 2, because some people have something against their news page being (in their eyes) “wrongly” fact checked and marked.

              Do you see the trouble the “MBFC BAD ewww” and no resolution is causing here?

              Please in the love of god ( or not god ) use the block button. I will lock these posts if shitpost comments like these are still coming.

              Sry, i am a little pissed, that no one sees the block on their website/app.

              • catloaf@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                No, it does not need to be here. Deleting the bot is absolutely an option. Refusing to reconsider your decision is childish.

              • Krauerking@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                You are demanding people use a block button for something that has discourse about implementing at all.

                Are you being paid by them to add it? Seriously? I get that you are pissed at you are the moderator. You signed up for this job and that means being in a position that requires talking to and listening and leading the community.

                This is just immature and incredibly unnecessary. It’s not a propaganda blocking tool you implemented but a bot that links to a website that lets people make immediate bias judgements before they even interact with other people.

                Do you see the trouble demanding this is what’s best is doing?

                You’ve clearly chosen a side and demand that everyone bend to it. Lock the post and lock the sub. You clearly don’t want to be here.

                • Rooki@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  18
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  We added the possibility for users to use the newly added context how they want it or not.

                  And you overexaggerated how much impact it really has on people. I have the feeling i am speaking with just some peoples alt here, just my suspicion.

                  Like said, if you dont like it block it. Like with everything else on the platform. Dont get you angry over a bot.

          • nia_the_cat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            We are giving you feedback because of this line

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

            This response is not the kind to be expected from an administrator that respects their community. Even if you disagree with it, the community is seeing you act incredibly defensively and emotionally to reasonable criticism and feedback, instead of taking an objective look at the situation.

              • Krauerking@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Maybe the feed back is we don’t want or need this bot?

                Like, your option is not between chopping off your left hand or your right and all the people screaming not to do it are just trying to get you to swap the axe to the other hand. Maybe they just think you should put it down and rethink why chopping off your hand is the only choice.

                You are stuck on a singular option of it must exist without reason for why other than because you kinda think it’s cool despite users telling you it’s not. To the point that you are going to punish people who don’t like it or report it.

                It’s childish. It really is.

              • nia_the_cat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                Look. The community dislikes your change. If you don’t have the ability to act in the interests of your community, then quite simply you are not a good moderator.

                I’m deleting my account. I refuse to be on an instance that it ran by immaturity.