The Tesseract Lemmy app shows a news source ranking from MBFC

https://lemmy.world/post/25639684

The Tesseract Lemmy app shows a news source ranking from MBFC - Lemmy.World

The tesseract Lemmy app [tesseract.dubvee.org/], has a little overview from mediabiasfactcheck.com [http://mediabiasfactcheck.com] (MBFC). It seems like a clever way to foster a healthy community. If you click on the ranking you get details. ranking details for CNN [https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/995f5c07-e4c7-4f6a-9b4c-6fdb43f866a2.png]

From the test that was done with the bot that was not a good source. 1) American focus 2) too much room for debate on the ranking Here some discussion on it lemmy.world/post/18073070
Media Bias Fact Check - Automation - Lemmy.World

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 [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/] 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 [https://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 💖

I suppose we’ve got to keep at it until we’re at a point where doing something is better than doing nothing. Where, of course, doing nothing is somewhat of an acknowledgement of the fact it’s hard to do something right enough to be able to apply it to all posts and all articles and all that.

An analogy comes to mind: it’s like the difference between telling hikers they’re at their own risk and advising them to bring water, good shoes, and a fully charged battery, and they’ll be fine. If you can’t account for everything, there are arguments to be made with trying to shift responsibility back to people with either more general or more specific warnings.

I agree that this is necessary, but we need to be mindful with the implementation. A decentralized approach might be more effective than relying on a centralized list. As you mentioned, a warning that encourages people to think critically and not take everything at face value is likely the best solution for now.