This bot is spreading misinformation.

This bot is spreading rightwing propaganda.

This bot is spamming every post.

This bot is consistently downvoted.

This bot degrades the user experience.

Please ban it.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    312·
    2 months ago

    there are independent studies showing its judgments to be the same as other reliable news fact checking sources.

    here’s one by the national institute of health.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10500312/

    there have been a bunch of studies like this about mbfc, just type in mbfc independent reliability study or something like that in any search engine and you’ll get a bunch of studies showing that they’re as credible as other reliable news fact checking sources and have no track record or evidence of misinformation.

    • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org
      133·
      2 months ago

      That doesn’t address the issue of mbfc adding it’s own bias in, which is what most have an issue with.

      It just focuses on their factual response and even ends with

      there is an issue with domain level checks like this as not every piece is held to same internal standards

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        38·
        2 months ago

        it explicitly addresses the baseless accusations of internal bias impacting ratings.

        that’s the very point of these independent studies.

        if mbfc checkers or other fact-checkers allowed their biases into their ratings, those findings would differ from other news fact-checking sources that managed to rate news sources more objectively.

        since their findings range from very similar to nearly identical to other credible news fact-checking sources and importantly there is still zero evidence of their “own bias” affecting their ratings, there’s no base for the accusations.

        just rilers rilin’.

        • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org
          113·
          2 months ago

          They ignored the part of

          MBFC Credibility Rating:

          Which is where the founder loves to play around with ratings based on their own biases.

          The study you linked too goes off of the factual rating which the founder usually doesn’t touch.

          It’s amazing how many they will say factual no failed fact checks then immediately doc rating because of their bias. Especially if publication doesn’t like Israel