Five @ Five @slrpnk.net

Admin at Slrpnk.net

---

Read more

Posts

750

Comments

332

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

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.

Is there a method where BLM could publicly raise concerns about the Democrats' process that you wouldn't characterize as 'the left fighting the left'?

Dave M. Van Zandt has no academic media literacy qualifications. He's not a social scientist. He should not be running a site that is being used to censor news feeds.

How absurd is it that a Reuters report on the Black Lives Matter statement would get reported as "Least Biased" but the source of the article, the actual statement by BLM unfiltered by corporate media bias, is marked as medium credible and mixed factually? This bot is actively harming media diversity and LW should be ashamed for taking Dave Van Zandt seriously.

I'm sharing the screenshot posted to Reddit, I haven't seen the article. You can follow the link to the Reddit thread.

Via Reddit

methodologies used to measure each publications bias are listed on each page.

What do you think methodology means in the context of science?

Dave M. Van Zandt has no academic media literacy qualifications. He's not a social scientist. He should not be running a site that is being used to censor news feeds.

He admits that his system for judging 'bias' is pseudoscience, but at the same time claims that MBFC's purpose is to debunk pseudoscience. He appears to have no idea what science is. His methods for rating credibility are not public, repeatable, or by his own admission falsifiable.

He is actively harming media diversity and LW should be ashamed for taking this charlatan seriously.

That's the sanitized version. They re-worded it to hide their endorsement of the redefinition of antisemitism.

The recent version:

This previous version was available while the IDF was engaged in the genocide of Palestinians:

I keep saying "them/they/their" but it's not really a group. It's mostly one guy, Dave M. Van Zandt, who has no academic media literacy qualifications. He's not a social scientist. He should not be running a site that is being used to censor news feeds.

The irony is that he admits that his system for judging 'bias' is pseudoscience, but at the same time claims that MBFC's purpose is to debunk pseudoscience. He appears to have no idea what science is. His methods are not public, repeatable, or by his own admission falsifiable.

News from the left-leaning journalists should not be categorized with the same qualifiers as AI-generated Russian fake news sites. LGBT advocacy and lobbying organizations that have no economic intersectionality are not "Left" -- LGBT sexual identities are not inherently political. CNN is a corporate news network, not a socialist organization. It's pretty obvious the deeply flawed simplification of the political spectrum to a continuum is based on an American moderate Republican capitalist's narrow understanding of politics, and Van Zandt admits as much:

He is actively harming media diversity and LW should be ashamed for taking this charlatan seriously.

If you don't have the freedom to cover your face at a political protest, the country you are protesting in is not free.

Is it your position that criticism of Israel should be censored? Is being pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, or anti-genocide antisemitic?

This is the position of Media Bias/Fact Check. By endorsing their platform, you are also endorsing their radically biased re-definition of antisemitism that is being used to slander holocaust survivors and progressive Jewish voices along with truth speakers of all races and creeds.

Groups like MBFC use their position as gatekeepers of the political spectrum to disguise radical ideas as centrist positions, and it's ironic that you're using such a biased propaganda platform to tell your readers what is credible.

Bias is not the same thing as propaganda, propaganda is not the same thing as misinformation. Articles should be evaluated on how factual they are, and there are plenty of platforms that are doing the hard work of verifying information without putting their political ideology above their credibility. This bot is a mistake.

Solidarity from SLRPNK. You're welcome to participate in !anarchism@slrpnk.net and !notvoting@slrpnk.net as well.

Biji biji!

'Party of law and order' mocked as Trump adviser speaks at RNC hours after prison release

'Bless his heart!' GOP delegates reportedly gleeful over Biden's ailment

Is there a clear business model? It seems like the goal is to make it free for collectives and non-profit use, and then collect fees from for-profit companies. The CC-NC-SA has an obvious business case because not everyone has the capability to set up and use the software, but it's popularity can create a secondary market for people to pay for other people to host it for them -> leading to revenue. Basically the Freeware model with the addition of the source being open. With art it creates a carve-out for copyright that allows free sharing, but once the art is used in a commercial context, the artist should get a cut of the revenue.

But if there's a secondary market of collectives providing that service without the need to pay, wouldn't they out-compete a privately owned service that pays for the software? Why would a privately owned service fund a software company that doesn't want them to exist? Likewise, why would a corporation use an artist's work that was shared under this license?

Kyle Gass’s agent was Michael Greene of Greene Talent Agency. Which conservative clients has he represented? If it's true, someone should really hold his feet to the fire on this.

Succinct and eloquent.

I think this would be a difficult sell, in part because not only would you need to write ironclad terms, you've need a whole new organization to enforce it. I don't think the Free Software Foundation would endorse it.

I could see a similar thing working with art and literature though - Creative Commons already has a non-commercial license, so creating a new category of restricted artistic license doesn't seem too far off from what they've already endorsed.

No one is illegal!