Skip Navigation
No Stupid Questions @lemmy.world
otp @sh.itjust.works

Why are people downvoting the MediaBiasFactChecker bot?

I know MediaBiasFactCheck is not a be-all-end-all to truth/bias in media, but I find it to be a useful resource.

It makes sense to downvote it in posts that have great discussion -- let the content rise up so people can have discussions with humans, sure.

But sometimes I see it getting downvoted when it's the only comment there. Which does nothing, unless a reader has rules that automatically hide downvoted comments (but a reader would be able to expand the comment anyways...so really no difference).

What's the point of downvoting? My only guess is that there's people who are salty about something it said about some source they like. Yet I don't see anyone providing an alternative to MediaBiasFactCheck...

You're viewing a single thread.

395 comments

  • What’s the point of downvoting? My only guess is that there’s people who are salty about something it said about some source they like. Yet I don’t see anyone providing an alternative to MediaBiasFactCheck…

    To express dissatisfaction.

    There's a lot of people that view the MBFC reports as themselves being biased, and to be fair, their process for generating the reports are opaque as fucking hell so we have no way to know how biased or not they are.

    it's also kinda spammy, and- IMO- not really all that useful.

    • Why do you say they’re opaque? They detail the history of the publication, the ownership, their analysis of bias within their reporting, and give examples of failed fact checks. I’m not sure what else you could want about how a publication is rated? I’m not saying it’s perfect, but they seem to be putting a solid effort into explaining how they arrive at the ratings they give.

      • Because their methodology is nothing but buzzwords:

        The primary aim of our methodology is to systematically evaluate the ideological leanings and factual accuracy of media and information outlets. This is achieved through a multi-faceted approach that incorporates both quantitative metrics and qualitative assessments in accordance with our rigorously defined criteria.

        Despite apparently having “rigorously defined criteria”, they don’t actually say what they are.

        • They literally publish their methodology and scoring system.

          https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

          So they do say exactly what their criteria is, and how it is scored. None of that is buzz words, it’s just a summary that fit in a few sentences. You can look at the full methodology if you want more than just that small bullet description.

          I’m not saying that you have to agree with their scoring, or that it is necessarily accurate. I just think if you’re going to critique a thing, you should at least know what you’re critiquing.

          • It’s crucial to note that our bias scale is calibrated to the political spectrum of the United States, which may not align with the political landscapes of other nations.

            But what even is this false left-right, liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican one-dimensional scale? The first thing they state on this page is that all this is inherently subjective. Who is MBFC to determine where the middle of this scale exists? If people want to seek out their opinion, that's fine, but this is inherently a subjective opinion about what constitutes "left center" vs "center," for example. I don't get how MBFC deserves their opinion on every news post.

            Also the formatting of the bot is awful as displayed on most Lemmy apps. On mine it's a giant wall of text. Other posts/bots don't look bad, just this one.

          • Bravo for bringing the notes. On a first glance, some of these feel like they require subjectivity (like, do we really believe the political spectrum is 1d?), but I agree I could run the computation myself from this.

          • There is a lot of good stuff there but it's still opaque when it comes to bias specifically. I mean, am I missing somether here? I genuinely feel like there must be a whole section I've missed or something based on some of the other commenters. The bias methodology is no more a methodology than "grind up some wheat, mix some water and yeast before chucking it in the oven for a bit" is a recipe for bread. You rate 4 categories from 0 - 10 and average it, but the ratings themselves are totally subjective.

            Story Choices: Does the source report news from both sides, or do they only publish one side.

            What does this even mean? If a site runs stories covering the IPCC recommendations for climate action but doesn't run some right wing conspiracy version of how climate change is a hoax, is that biased story selection?

            What did I miss here?

          • Oh look. You copied my link!

            Sorry. No they don’t.

            That’s not “rigorously defined”. It’s a bunch of weasel words and vagaries.

            For example. In “factual reporting”, to get a “very high” score:

            A source with a “Very High” rating is consistently factual, relies on credible information, promptly corrects errors, and has never failed any fact checks in news reporting or opinion pieces.

            What does “consistently factual” mean? What qualifies as “a credible source”? What does “prompt” mean?

            Those are all nice sounding words, but they don’t really tell you anything. Prompt could be anything from seconds to weeks. (And let’s be honest, probably varies from researcher to researcher.)

            Oh they go into more detail….

            A questionable source, for example:

            Questionable sources display extreme bias, propaganda, unreliable sourcing, or a lack of transparency. They may also engage in disseminating fake news for profit or influence. Such sources are generally unreliable and require fact-checking on an article-by-article basis. A source lacking transparency in mission, ownership, or authorship is automatically categorized as questionable. Additionally, sources from countries with significant government censorship are also deemed questionable.

            Who defines their extreme bias? What is propaganda?

            Voice of America is literally a government ran propaganda service yet they assign it high factual, least-biased and high credibility.

            Sorry, but their methodology isn’t a methodology, and the only thing that’s inherently reproducible is their fact check rating. Everything else relies on what their subjective analysis.

            • Consistently factual is exactly that. Both of those words mean actual things. And they go on to say that they can’t fail fact checks. And prompt corrections likely means that as a story develops, that if there were incorrect things reported, they are corrected as soon as the new information is available.

              As for who defines extreme bias, it’s literally them. That is what they are saying they are doing. And they spell out what their left vs right criteria are. And how they judge it. Of course this is subjective. There isn’t really a way to judge the political spectrum without subjectivity. They do include examples in their reports about what biased language, sources, or reporting they found. Which allows you to easily judge whether you agree with it.

              As for VOA, they say in the ownership portion that it is funded by the US government and that some view it as a propaganda source. They also discuss the history and purpose of it being founded. And then continue on with the factual accuracy and language analysis. You may not agree with it, but it is following their own methodology, and fully explained in the report.

              Again, there isn’t anything saying you have to agree with them. It is a subjective rating. I’m not sure how much more transparent they can be though. They have spelled out how they grade, and each report provides explanations and examples that allow you to make your own judgments. Or a starting point for your own research.

              If you can define a completely objective methodology to judge political bias on whatever spectrum you choose, then please do. It’s inherently subjective. And there isn’t really a way around that.

              • Consistently factual is exactly that.

                So what constitutes "consistently factual", then? if the 'consistently factual' means 'always factual', then the explanation of allowing 'prompt corrections' is unnecessary. A "correction" is different than an "update", after all. so what rate of error is "rigorously" defined here?

                Further, how do they deal with (the vast majority) of fact checkers, using qualified language like "mostly factual" or "misleading" or "out of context". or "distorted"?

                .... And prompt corrections likely means that as a story develops, that if there were incorrect things reported, they are corrected as soon as the new information is available.

                "likely..." They don't say that. I wonder why they don't just say that?

                You're assuming that's what "prompt" means, but that's... an assumption. as I said, it could be anything from seconds to weeks. I assume- i don't know, lets just be honest here- that their language is intentional. which means it's probably not that.

                Seems like it would be a super easy thing to actually define. Like. 'Consistently Factual' could be "No more than X percentage of articles requiring corrections or otherwise failing a 3rd party fact check".

                ... Of course this is subjective. There isn’t really a way to judge the political spectrum without subjectivity. They do include examples in their reports about what biased language, sources, or reporting they found. Which allows you to easily judge whether you agree with it.

                So glad we agree on that.

                As for VOA, they say in the ownership portion that it is funded by the US government and that some view it as a propaganda source. They also discuss the history and purpose of it being founded. And then continue on with the factual accuracy and language analysis. You may not agree with it, but it is following their own methodology, and fully explained in the report.

                Compare, VOA's to Al Jazeera's. Which, Al Jazeera is Qatar-owned. even so, It's widely considered a reliable news source; where as, VOA was literally forbidden from being served within the US borders precisely because it was propaganda, until 2013- when it decided to open up drops to the internet specifically to "counter" Al Qaeda messaging. (aka. propaganda.)

                VOA:

                Founded in 1942, Voice of America (VOA) is a United States government-funded multimedia news source and the official external broadcasting institution of the United States. VOA provides programming for broadcasts on radio, TV, and the Internet outside of the U.S., in English and some foreign languages. Some consider the Voice of America to be a form of pro-USA propaganda. However, VOA journalists are governed by its Best Practices Guide, which says that “The accuracy, quality, and credibility of the Voice of America are its most important assets, and they rest on the audiences’ perception of VOA as an objective and reliable source of U.S., regional and world news and information.”

                Surveys show that 84% of VOA’s audiences trust VOA to provide accurate and reliable information. A similar percentage (84%) say that VOA helps them understand current events relevant to their lives. VOA is produced in 47 languages.

                it should be noted that A), its so nice to know that their journalists are held to a standard. (I'm sure Al Jazeera journalists aren't...) and b) that there's a survey saying 84% of people that actually look at VOA is reliable. A survey conducted by... their board of governors... and the linked source is the appropriations PDF...

                Compared to Al Jazeera:

                Founded in 1996, Al Jazeera is an international news network owned by Qatar’s state through the Qatar Media Corporation. It is headquartered in Doha, Qatar. You can view their history timeline here and see Al Jazeera America’s leadership here. Dr. Mostefa Souag is currently Acting Director-General of the Al Jazeera Media Network.

                now, I'm not saying Al Jazeera isn't Qatari propaganda, it more or less is. but you see the the totally different tone here?

                Now lets move onto the bias/analysis section. VOA:

                In review, VOA presents the USA and world news from a United States perspective. There is minimal use of loaded language in news stories such as this: Officials Hope for Strife-Free Trump Visit to London and this Pompeo Seeks Common Ground on Iran, Huawei in Europe. Both of these stories are sourced from official videos or credible sources. Some stories tend to lean slightly left through portraying President Trump negatively, such as this: Trump Unleashes Again on Special Counsel Who Didn’t Charge Him. When it comes to science, the VOA follows the consensus model and therefore is pro-science.

                Voice of America has been called a propaganda arm of the US Government, and perhaps it was at the start. Today, it is a straightforward journalism outfit that might lean slightly left but is mostly least biased on a whole

                Emphasis mine (also the italics just to make the headlines clear.) Now the emphasised bits is straight up bullshit. it's government funded. It's entire purpose- even today- is to disseminate pro-US propaganda everywhere outside the US. it's forbiden from radio broadcasts that might reach US soil, and it's only allowed to drop things on the interent because of a special provision specifically to counter messaging by terrorists.

                Factual or not, it's a propaganda outlet.

                Al Jazeera:

                In review, Al Jazeera reports news with minimally loaded wording in their headlines and articles such as this: UN approves team to monitor ceasefire in Yemen’s port city, and Erdogan delays Syria operation, welcomes US troop withdrawal. Both of these articles are properly sourced from credible news agencies. When reporting USA news, there is minimal bias in reporting such as this: Pentagon chief Mattis quits, cites policy differences with Trump. In general, straight news reporting has a minimal bias; however, as a state-funded news agency, Al Jazeera is typically not critical of Qatar.

                Al Jazeera also has an opinion page that exhibits significant bias against Israel. In this article, the author uses highly negative emotional words as evidenced by this quote: “Europe is increasingly sharing Israel’s racist approach to border security and adopting its deadly technologies.” This article, however, is properly sourced from credible media outlets. Another article, “How many more ways can Israel sentence Palestinians to death?” also uses loaded language that is negative toward Israel. Further, the opinion page does not favor US President Donald Trump through this article: ‘Barbed wire-plus‘: Borders know no love. In general, opinion pieces are routinely biased against Israel and right-wing ideologies.

                In 2017, Al Jazeera aired an investigative report of Britain’s Israel lobby. Following the airing, Ofcom (the UK government-approved regulatory and competition authority) received complaints from many pro-Israeli British activists, including one former Israeli embassy employee. They were accused of anti-Semitism, bias, unfair editing, and infringement of privacy, which was later cleared by Ofcom, who said the piece was not anti-semitic and was, in fact, investigative journalism. Later, a US version of the documentary called “Lobby” was not aired due to pressure from US Legislators pushing for Al Jazeera to register as a foreign entity and therefore labeling its journalists as ‘spies.’ Further, Saudi Arabia and three other Arab nations demanded Qatar to shut down Al-Jazeera. Al Jazeera rebuts the accusations here.

                now, VOA's review is easily seen as pure spin. MBFC goes out of their way to assauge any doubt what so ever that they're factual and not biased. nop. no sir. Now, it would be fair to say that because they literally define bias using the US discourse as the meter stick... that there is no bias. Sort of chicken and the egg, right? any how... there's no mention of Al Jazeera's code of ethics... and the cited failed fact checks? date to 2018, one of which falls outside the 5 year window since it was last updated- the fact check was published august of 2018, when it was updated in October of 2023. Pedantic, I know, but the 5 year window is their rule.

                all it takes is a five minute scroll through VOA to see that they have the same misleading bias towards the US/US government as Al Jazeera has towards Qatar.

                VOA's was last updated in... Nov 2022.

                If you can define a completely objective methodology to judge political bias on whatever spectrum you choose, then please do. It’s inherently subjective. And there isn’t really a way around that.

                you don't need to define something that's not subjective, exactly. But they need to explain what the methodology is. they're looking for loaded words? then we need examples of what are loaded words that they're looking for. that shouldn't be too hard. it doesn't even need to be exhaustive. just exhaustive enough.

                Putting it on the individual articles makes it arbitrary. ask yourself... is "deadly" a loaded word? Or is it qualitative leading to understand that people actually died from the "deadly attack" rather than were just sent to the hospital in "an attack". or that people died in a wildfire, hurricane or something else. Nobody can check every article to get a sense for their own criteria, and what they posted as a methodology is far from sufficient to the task of repeating their process. Ideally, I should be able to take their methodology article, follow it more or less step by step, and produce at least similar results. Can't come even close.

                • With your own reply you show that they have given you most of the information needed to make your own assessment. Like I’ve said other places in this thread, you don’t have to agree with them. I have never claimed they are correct. I’m saying that they provide information about how they arrived at their conclusion, you can assess that information and decide whether you agree.

                  It still stands that it is at least a reasonable place to look to gather basic information about a media source. And provides you with a solid starting point to research and make an assessment about a news source.

                  I agree that using the US political spectrum pretty significantly skews things since US politics is almost all center to right if you compare it to the wider spectrum globally. But since they gave their information, and what spectrum they are using it makes it pretty simple to get a baseline for most media outlets at a glance if it’s not one I’m familiar with.

                  And with the number of outright insane news sources people like to share, it’s useful to have a way to get at least a decent snapshot of what to expect.

        • On each page, they describe, in detail, exactly how they come to their conclusions.

          While you may disagree with what they have to say, to claim they’re hiding anything or that they aren’t being transparent or arbitrary is just untrue.

          • here's their definition of what's a left or right bias

            It's pretty fucking arbitrary.

            Additionally, their methodology is a bunch of gibberish and buzz words. that they explain their justification on each article is inadequate. For example, Al jazeera is dinged for using "negative emotion" words like "Deadly".

            Deadly might invoke a certain kind of emotion. but it's also the simplest way to describe an attack in which some one dies. Literally every news service will use "deadly attack" if people are dying, regardless if it's an attack by terrorists, or by cackling baboons. (or indeed not even an attack. for example 'Deadly wildfire' or 'deadly hurricane'.) the application of using that as an example is extremely arbitrary, on a case by case basis.

            • Now you’re just repeating yourself. That doesn’t make it any more true.

              And as far as your claims of methodology being arbitrary, just because you use words in an arbitrary manner does not make their methodology arbitrary.

              Like I said, just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t make them wrong or you right. Feel free to block them if you don’t like it. But other users here have clearly demonstrated how your argument does not hold water.

              • Okay.

                Take their methodology.

                Work through it.

                You can’t because most of the “rigorous definitions “ aren’t shared.

                You still haven’t explained what “factually consistent” means in a method that’s repeated and able to be applied regularly.

                Their methodology as posted is far too vague to adequately consider their ability to provide consistent neutral ratings.

                How are “loaded” words evaluated? Is there a table of words that are considered “loaded”? Personal feeling? We don’t know. We know what some of them are, since they’re mentioned on specific articles.

                But that isn’t a consistent or “rigorously defined” criteria. So what is the “rigorously defined criteria”- and why is that not published?

                Do you not see how that’s ripe for abuse?

                • I have used their methodology and worked through it. I find no fault with it.

                  And finally, you’re the one who makes claims that there is some problem with their methodology, yet you have not demonstrated that at all. All you demonstrated is that you happen to disagree with it and that you don’t like it. If you wish to prove your point, you’re gonna need evidence for that, and all of your carrying on here I have not seen the shred of that.

                  Just block it and move on already. Your disagreement is hardly worth this crusade.

                  • I have used their methodology and worked through it. I find no fault with it.

                    So then, It should be simple for you to tell us what rate of error is acceptable to still qualify as “factually consistent”.

                    This is like giving. Recipe without measures, or a “how to build a shed” guide without describing how to build the pad it sits on.

                    And finally, you’re the one who makes claims that there is some problem with their methodology, yet you have not demonstrated that at all.

                    I haven’t? Huh. Interesting. So all those “rigorously defined criteria”, those are public? We know how they’re actually evaluated?

                    We know what error rate is “Factually Consistent”, we know how they treat “misleading” tags or “misrepresentation” tags in their factual rating?

                    I mean in my looking for an example where they clearly do not have a consistent methodology, I found it the first place I looked. (Okay, so I knew VOA news and Al Jazeera are both state owned propaganda outlets.)

                    They’re both inherently biased. Yet one is “least biased” just because its owners happen to the us gov? Oh look. Here’s a third gov-owned propaganda outlet. Gee, what makes VOa special?

                    Just block it and move on already. Your disagreement is hardly worth this crusade.

                    No but the open discourse here and in similar communities is. Me blocking it just hides it from me. MBFC is being used, in part, to evaluate sources for articles.

                    It’s a third party, private-interest group whose methods aren’t clear and self-evidently inconsistently applied.

                    Even if they were demonstrably always right… that’s a problem, because sometimes the best source/news agency to talk about a given issue sucks.

                    Sometimes the discussion is about awareness of how shitty “that rag” is.

                    • i'm not here to waste time trying to convince of you of something about which you've clearly made up your mind, since others have shared plenty of facts, made great arguments, and all you do is keep shifting the goalposts.

                      not to mention: it's not for me to prove your claims-- that's on you, and you haven't. all i have claimed is that i'm satisfied, and the only proof you need of that is my word ont he matter.

                      so, once again, since you haven't proven anything other than you disagree with it, i suggest you simply block it and move on with your life. you have no greater authority to decide what is or is not a "reliable source" than MBFC, but at least they show their work.

                      • Since others have shared plenty of facts, made great arguments, and all you do is keep shifting the goalposts.

                        I shift the goalposts but am just repeating myself? interesting.

                        In any case... as for my "claims" perhaps I've missed something. Again. From their own methodology page:

                        The primary aim of our methodology is to systematically evaluate the ideological leanings and factual accuracy of media and information outlets. This is achieved through a multi-faceted approach that incorporates both quantitative metrics and qualitative assessments in accordance with our rigorously defined criteria.

                        Okay. so that's the highlevel sales pitch. emphasis mine.

                        Perhaps. just perhaps, I've missed where they dropped what those defined criteria are. lets keep reading.

                        While the concept of bias is inherently subjective and lacks a universally accepted scientific formula, our methodology employs a series of objective indicators to approximate it. We utilize a visual representation—a yellow dot on a scale—to signify the extent of bias for each evaluated source. This scale is accompanied by a “Detailed Report” section which elaborates on the source’s characteristics and the basis for its bias rating.

                        Our bias assessment encompasses various dimensions, including political orientation, factual integrity, and the utilization of credible, verifiable sources. It’s crucial to note that our bias scale is calibrated to the political spectrum of the United States, which may not align with the political landscapes of other nations.

                        Objective indicators? what indicators? Where? for you or me to understand how they're arriving at their analysis, I need to understand what "objective indicators" they're using. they're not listed anywhere I can find. Perhaps I've missed it. I don't think I have. but. perhaps I have.

                        Now, Skipping down to the specific categories....

                        The categories are as follows:

                        • Biased Wording/Headlines- Does the source use loaded words to convey emotion to sway the reader. Do headlines match the story?
                        • Factual/Sourcing- Does the source report factually and back up claims with well-sourced evidence.
                        • Story Choices: Does the source report news from both sides, or do they only publish one side.
                        • Political Affiliation: How strongly does the source endorse a particular political ideology? Who do the owners support or donate to?

                        Alright. now we're getting to the stuff I'm asking for! maybe. uh. shit. The just "Biased Wording/Headlines" at that. So they have no list of common loaded words, (For example, is "Deadly Wildfire" okay but "Deadly Attack" not? both are describing events in which people presumably died. What you, I or anyone else perceives as "loaded" is going to be entirely different. You want to rigorously define criteria for bias? you're gonna have to at least provide examples. And not on the individual ratings. Protip. the lack of strong or emotional language is also an indication of bias- for examples of that, watch reports surrounding any cops that killed a subject. you're almost certainly going to be seeing the pro-cop news agencies shy away from language that evokes anger.

                        Then then get into their "comprehensive" analysis:

                        For a thorough evaluation, we review a minimum of 10 headlines and 5 news stories from each source. Our methodology employs a variety of search techniques to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the source’s political affiliation and ideological leanings. This process can be time-consuming or very simple, depending on the source.

                        yeah. uhm. that's not "comprehensive". at all. MPR news, just from today, just the ones that get highlighted, Minnesota Public Radio news has 28 articles. from today. and that's not even bothering to look at all of the massive amounts of MPR/NPR affiliated podcasts and such being pumped out sometimes 3 times a day.

                        Further, there's no information on which articles are selected. Which can have a profound impact on whether or not they get a passing grade for factualness. If you're only checking ten out of literal thousands of articles a year. or, even a hundred articles, out of thousands a year, how you select articles to review are going to have a profound impact. Is it random? is it by top rating? are they cherry picked? top headlines from random dates?

                        And lets draw attention to that last line. "This process can be time consuming or very simple, depending on the source". meaning... it varies based on the source. Even if there's more to work with for a given source... the process should probably not be any more or less simple- the process should be the process. that's the purpose of a methodology.

                        Skipping the descriptions of their fact check ratings... all I'm going to say here is that there's no objective standard for what "consistent" or "often" or any sort of miss-rate on being factual. I will submit that, for example VOA news probably should be given a low factual score based on this statement: >A “Low” rating indicates the source is often unreliable and should be fact-checked for fake news, conspiracy theories, and propaganda.
                        you know, considering VOA is literally a state media outlet. whose entire purpose is to pump out propaganda; yet it's given a 'high' rating. but what do I know, they certainly weren't forbidden from broadcasting inside US boarders because of their propagandist nature.

                        their critera for who they use as a factcheck service is useful:

                        Our methodology incorporates findings from credible fact-checkers who are affiliated with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Only fact checks from the last five years are considered, and any corrected fact checks do not negatively impact the source’s rating.

                        IFCN is good. the date restriction is good. explaining how correct fact checks affect things... is good. I would like to see a comment about which fact checkers they always use, or always use when it's relevant (for example, reviewing a french news service using, idunno, a taiwanese fact checker seems kinda sketchy.) Do they search all 115 current signatories and the other 54 that are in the renewal process? do they search only those from the source's home country? when do they elect to expand beyond that? do they only use one service at all?

                        I'd assume they use some sort of aggregator service to look for fact checks across all of them at once. Personally, my preferred choice would be an aggregation service combining all of them, and searching for articles tagged as fact checking the specific source, rather than for each of the articles being reviewed. Then organize those by some sort of pass/mostly-pass/fail/epically-fail sort of metric. but that's just me.

                        TL:DR? my goal post has always been that their methodology is opaque and not useful to determine that their method reasonably eliminates their bias. that has never changed. they don't describe what acceptable error rates are for factualness (never mind severity of the error. reporting a person wore a green shirt when they wore a blue shirt might be factually incorrect, but does it really matter if the story isn't about what shirt they wore?). they don't describe even in brief detail what 'loaded' or 'biased' headlines actually look like. They describe a literal propaganda service as being "Least Biased".

                        They cite newsguard as a competitor (i'm not sure about that, but they're in the same space. from what I see on their website... they're selling their service to different audiences. Like brands looking to advertise on a specific site, etc.) Lets look at their methodology page. I'm not going to go into detail. but you see how it's broken down? how specific. each criterion is specifically listed, with reasons for it passing or failing a given criterion listed, as well as express explanations of what things mean. When you're looking through it. not 'we judge on bias.... which means that we look for biased words....'. Like a phrase you see is 'that a regular use would not likely see it on a daily basis'.

                        Check their scoring process. They have a researcher (described as a trained journalist), research the website, make a report, then they write the article. that article is then put on pause for comment from the company in question ... then it is reviewed by a people ("at least one senior ediitor and Co-CEO"...) to check for factual accuracy and what have you. Only then is it published. I assume that MBFC has something similar, but that's an assumption. no where does it describe the editorial process. for all we know, it really is just one guy in a cat suit working the one article, doing it his way while the lady in the dog suit is doing it her way and the editorial staff are in a two-person horse suit searching for organic oats. I'd rather assume not, but again. that is an assumption on my part.

                  • Just block it and move on already. Your disagreement is hardly worth this crusade.

                    That's not sufficient.

                    A private trust assessing company shouldn't be given free space in an open public forum as though it's assessments we're something the general public should be aware of. If you trust it you can go seek it's assessment off site. But this company shouldn't be allowed to spam the fediverse of all places.

395 comments