Five @ Five @slrpnk.net

Admin at Slrpnk.net

---

Read more

Posts

747

Comments

331

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

I've posted twice in the thread in !politics@lemmy.world, as well as reached out to @Rooki@lemmy.world, and his responses reek of bad faith. I've posted in the pinned thread, but if it has come this far, then politely containing our discontent to the sanctioned channels is not enough.

It's pretty hard to ignore the overwhelming downvotes the bot posts have attracted, and if someone sees that and still thinks MBFC is a good idea, I question their judgement. It's likely they will ignore our well-thought out concerns as well.

My suggestion is to respond directly to the bot so that people observing the spectacle of downvotes have a better understanding of what is going on. We downvote MBFC because we are on the side of fact-checking and media literacy - not against it.

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? Fact-checking is an essential tool in fighting the waves of fake news polluting the public discourse. But if that fact-checking is partisan, then it only acerbates the problem of people divided on the basics of a shared reality.

This is why a consortium of fact-checking institutions have joined together to form the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), and laid out a code of principles. You can find a list of signatories as well as vetted organizations on their website.

MBFC is not a signatory to the IFCN code of principles. As a partisan organization, it violates the standards that journalists have recognized as essential to restoring trust in the veracity of the news. I've spoken with @Rooki@Lemmy.World about this issue, and his response has been that he will continue to use his tool despite its flaws until something better materializes because the API is free and easy to use. This is like searching for a lost wallet far from where you lost it because the light from the nearby street lamp is better. He is motivated to disregard the harm he is doing to !politics@Lemmy.World, because he doesn't want to pay for the work of actual fact-checkers, and has little regard for the many voices who have spoken out against it in his community.

By giving MBFC another platform to increase its exposure, you are repeating his mistake. Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all. Just like how the proliferation of fake news undermines the authority of journalism, the growing popularity of a fact-checking site by a political hack like Dave M. Van Zandt undermines the authority of non-partisan fact-checking institutions in the public consciousness.

Media Bias Fact Check puts The Guardian and Breitbart in the same (Factual Reporting: MIXED) category of credibility. Apparently this is because they both have articles where the facts are contested. This ignores the difference in size of the two news sources' publication rate, the number of articles contested, and the seriousness and type of errors.

MBFC is run primarily by one weird right-wing guy. He's not a social scientist, has no experience in journalism, and is basically mirroring other right-wing Americans' biases back at them. Lemmy.World loses credibility every day this bot continues to operate.

Dave Van Zandt's site, Media Bias Fact Check puts The Guardian and Breitbart in the same (Factual Reporting: MIXED) category of credibility. Apparently this is because they both have articles where the facts are contested. This ignores the difference in size of the two news sources' publication rate, the number of articles contested, and the seriousness and type of errors. Van Zandt is not a social scientist, and should not be running a credibility gatekeeper when he doesn't understand statistics, science, or bias.

MBFC uses a fundamentally flawed methodology for categorizing bias. Lemmy.World loses credibility every day this bot continues to operate.

Dave Van Zandt's site, Media Bias Fact Check puts The Guardian and Breitbart in the same (Factual Reporting: MIXED) category of credibility. Apparently this is because they both have articles where the facts are contested. This ignores the difference in size of the two news sources' publication rate, the number of articles contested, and the seriousness and type of errors. This is not a credible way of measuring a news publication's credibility.

MBFC is a right-biased credibility gatekeeper. Lemmy.World loses credibility every day this bot continues to operate.

Dave Van Zandt's site, Media Bias Fact Check puts The Guardian and Breitbart in the same (Factual Reporting: MIXED) category of credibility. Apparently this is because they both have articles where the facts are contested. This ignores the difference in size of the two news sources' publication rate, the number of articles contested, and the seriousness and type of errors.

MBFC is a fundamentally flawed credibility gatekeeper. Lemmy.World loses credibility every day this bot continues to operate.

The Walt Disney Company is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate headquartered in Florida. ABC News is a brand of Disney Advertising, whose primary product is propaganda to buy automobiles and prescription pharmaceuticals.

MBFC is a right-leaning credibility gatekeeper that classifies this advertising vehicle as left of center, but it should be remembered that ABC is a neoliberal tool of billionaire Bob Iger, who rescinded his membership in the Democratic Party in 2016 when Trump came to power, and now identifies as an independent voter. He has donated to both Democrat and Republican politicians and PACs, but has been a enemy to unionization and working people. His only allegiance is to the billionaire class.

If you want to understand bias, follow the money. David Van Zandt's site MBFC has a terrible track record of properly vetting sites for bias, and should not be featured here as an authority. Any journalism that is 'left-leaning' coming from ABC News exists in spite of its fundamental right-wing bias.

The guy who runs this site, Dave Van Zandt has no idea what he's doing. Media Bias Fact Check puts The Guardian and Breitbart in the same (Factual Reporting: MIXED) category of credibility. Apparently this is because they both have articles where the facts are contested. This ignores the difference in size of the two news sources' publication rate, the number of articles contested, and the seriousness and type of errors.

Lemmy.World loses credibility every day this bot continues to operate.

Dave Van Zandt along with science, doesn't understand statistics. His site, Media Bias Fact Check puts The Guardian and Breitbart in the same (Factual Reporting: MIXED) category of credibility. Apparently this is because they both have articles where the facts are contested. This ignores the difference in size of the two news sources' publication rate, the number of articles contested, and the seriousness and type of errors.

Lemmy.World loses credibility every day this bot continues to operate.

Why is Lemmy."World" applying a US-Centric political spectrum to international news?

MBFC is a joke.

Experiencing the confusion and animosity of others is a familiar feature of existing outside the political center.

I desire to be understood and respected, as evidenced by this conversation, but at some point, the confused and angry need to take responsibility for their ignorance and abuse.

Black Lives Matter's criticisms of Kamala's selection apply to more than the present moment. It's a principled argument against the anti-democratic nature of the Democratic Party. This didn't start with Kamala's ascension or when Joe Biden was handed the nomination without significant opposition, but has been a feature of the Democrats' playbook for a long time.

A party that positions itself as the defender of Democracy undermines and weakens its authority when its own party structures cynically undermine and sideline popular participation.

They are my own words, though a large section was copy and pasted from a similar comment I made a month ago, which may explain the unusual tone. Explaining ideas outside the political center take more work, and I try and save labor where I can.

I do care about the Democratic Party, the same way I care about the Republican Party. Regardless of my membership, their policies and actions have a significant effect on my life.

Ironically the Republican primary system allows their party to be highjacked by the far right, while the 'Democratic' system of super-delegates was specifically designed after the events of 1968 to prevent the left from accumulating similar influence. This is one in a long line of anti-democratic laws and institutions that have fueled the rise of fascism in America, and deserves criticism.

I disagree with that characterization.

put a hold on the infighting for all of three months and then we can start applying pressure in constructive ways that ensure this never happens again.

I'm not a Democrat or any other kind of party member, and BLM is not an organization of Democrats. This isn't an issue of party discipline, its a tried and true tactic for political change.

In the 1960s black people were much more actively discriminated against on a systemic level, practically prevented from voting in many of the states in the southern United States. The president at the time was the Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, and was facing the much more racist Republican challenger Barry Goldwater. While the black vote was suppressed in the south, there was a significant voting block in the north of black people and their allies whose main issue was civil rights. Civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, met several times with LBJ, who coaxed them to tone down the direct action protests and criticism until after the election, as he claimed to we willing to negotiate with them once the threat to his power was diminished. Instead, civil rights protests increased. The leaders, probably correctly, determined that once the election was over, they would have less leverage. Even though losing the election meant having an enemy in the white house, having a 'friend' who continued to delay essential concessions did not further their cause. People were actively being murdered by the 'Jim Crow' apartheid regime, and delays and half-measures were not sufficient.

Thanks to the pressure of millions of people engaged in direct action and open criticism of the president, the Civil Rights Act was passed before the 1964 election. LBJ won by a landslide due to the popularity of the legislation, but suffered the severe political consequences Democrats were trying to avoid through their strategy of placation and delay. The 1964 election was the last where Democrats got the majority of the white vote, and electing politicians in the southern states became much more difficult for their party. Democrats will continue to ignore criticism unless there are real political consequences to their actions. If you're curious what historical role your rhetoric plays, look up Martin Luther King Jr.'s letter from Birmingham Jail:

I have never yet engaged in a direct-action movement that was "well timed" according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "wait." It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This "wait" has almost always meant "never."

I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; ...who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Black Lives Matter is the spiritual successor to King's legacy, and have been fighting with direct action against the policies that Donald Trump champions since before he was first elected. They're not going to throw up their hands and give up if Trump suspends elections, and I hope you won't either.

The only error is that someone else didn't post it in a more timely manner. I admire Black Lives Matter, and I enjoy signal boosting their voices. I think they have good ideas, the kind that deserve to be discussed in forums full of thinking people. The message from this statement is timeless, and I think you might benefit from reading it.

You can prevent this from happening in the future by following BLM's media accounts and posting their relevant statements before I do.

The fact that the article hadn't already been posted in the last 3 weeks I think is a failing of the entire Threadiverse. I'm happy I could rectify it, but I'm also disappointed we didn't get an opportunity to discuss it sooner. We should all step up our game.

I'm a leftist with a long history of supporting healthy discussion on the Threadiverse, @millie; you can easily review it by reading my post and comment history. And I'm disappointed you would assume bad faith when we just had a similar interaction last month, when you were accusing people who criticized this same weakness in the Democratic party of being bad faith actors. This was back when the defense was being used to prop up Joe Biden as the candidate after the debate that revealed his mental decline. I had hoped you might gain more appreciation of the value of dissent from that event.

Do you think it was a mistake to listen to dissent and for Joe Biden to step down?

Which is it?

Both. I didn't see the date, and also I like to pretend that the left is diverse and is capable of criticizing the Democratic party.