Looks like it’s a CreepyPasta, here’s a Wikipedia article on it.

deleted by creator

Like I kinda said in my last paragraphs you’ve got fair points that it may be good enough for what it’s being used for here (despite it’s clear biases) since it’s not being used to disallow posts. Although other commenters have said it has a pro-Zionist bias as well which is honestly more concerning than things I’ve pointed out. Haven’t had time to check beyond the ADL one.

Overall my main issue is the community wasn’t really asked if one was desired, which one should be used, how it should be used, etc. Because of that and the lack of good response by the poster I’ve already decided to follow other world news communities instead of this one.

I think the importance of American bias is overstated. What matters is that they’re transparent about it. That bias also impacts the least important thing they track.

It affects the overall credibility rating of the source, how is that the least important thing? They also seem to let it affect the factual reporting rating despite not clearly stating that in the methodology.

Based on MBFC’s [methodology](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/), it’s actually impossible for editorial bias alone to impact the credibility rating without having additional problems

This is only true specifically when you’re thinking about it as a great source can’t have its credibility rating lowered. A not great factual source can get a high credibility rating if it’s deemed centrist enough which again is arbitrary based on the (effectively) 1 guys personal opinion.

High Credibility Score Requirement: 6

Example 1

Factual Reporting Mixed: 1

No left/right bias: 3

Traffic High: 2

Example 2

Factual Reporting Mostly Factual: 2

No left/right bias: 3

Traffic Medium: 1

See how weighing credibility on a (skewed) left/right bias metric waters this down? Both of these examples would get high credibility.

On top of that, none of this impacts this community at all. It could be a problem if the standard here was ‘highest’ ratings exclusively, but it isn’t.

That’s a fair point and I did state in my original post that despite my own feelings I’d be open to something like this if the community had been more involved in the process of choosing one/deciding one is necessary and also if we had the bots post clearly call out it’s biases, maybe an explanation of its methodology and the inherent risks in it.

The way it’s been pushed from the mod first without polling the community and seeing the reaction to criticism some of which was constructive is my main issue here really.

I’m not going to die on the intercept hill here I’m fine with the fact that even though they fired the person it’s a stain on their record so sure let’s say that rating is fine.

It was one of the first 3 I checked so I’m sure I’ll find more that are problematic when I have a chance to look because it’s their methodology that’s biased. Also the other 2 I pointed out are clearly not correct.

Got rebuttals for any of my criticisms about the methodology?

I wont disagree that there should be a ranking for using loaded language but combining it with the factuality ranking twists what the ranking means since to the average person they’re going to read that as how accurate the facts are.

It should be its own separate rating from factuality. Again if we’re going to have to have a bot like this put clear disclaimers and ideally find a better one than this.

As the other poster says we don’t need to have something like this at all.

If you’re adamant about it then make a post where people can suggest which one we use and vote on it. We can also adjust the bots comment to clearly call out the chosen ones biases and methodology. As it is now it’s actively harmful as I mention in my other comment.

I think having this post isn’t a great idea because you are just assuming the websites bias are legit. At the very least there needs to be a lot of warnings in the bots post about the websites biases and the methodology they use so the reader can come to their own conclusion.

Just looking over the methodlogy it’s clear that it has it’s own biases:

American Bias

The website itself says it’s distinctions of left and right are US based which is very skewed from the rest of the world. There should be a disclaimer or it shouldn’t be used in any world news communities.

Centrist Bias

The website follows the idea of “enlightened centrism” since if it determines a website has a left/right lean (again arbitrary) it affects the factual ratings of the sources.

Examples of this are: FAIR only getting the 2nd highest rating despite never having failed a fact check.

The Intercept getting only a “mostly factual” rating (3rd highest) despite their admittance it has never failed a fact check.

Despite my personal opinions on the pointlessness of using a US based left/right bias criteria I’d feel better if it was at least kept it it’s own section but when you allow it to affect the factual rating of the source it’s just outright wrong. The factual accuracy of the website should be the sole thing that affects this rating.

Questionable Fact Checking

Even just checking some of their ratings raises doubts on the websites credibility.

The ADL is rated as high (2nd highest) and wasn’t found to fail any fact checks.

The ADL was found to be so unreliable on it’s reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict it is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia.

“Wikipedia’s editors declared that the Anti-Defamation League cannot be trusted to give reliable information on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they overwhelmingly said the ADL is an unreliable source on antisemitism.”

Maybe Wikipedia editors are a good arbiter of truth and maybe they aren’t but as people can see there isn’t a consensus and so by choosing Media Bias/Fact Check you’re explicitly choosing to align your “truth” with this websites biases.

I use voyager which I know is available on iOS. There’s a lot of android options as well.

Since other commenters aren’t bothering to look into it at all:

Cuba says it has disrupted a scheme in Russia to recruit Cuban citizens to fight in Ukraine.

In a statement, Cuba’s Foreign Ministry called the alleged plan a human trafficking ring. It said Cubans, both in Russia and on the island, had been recruited to fight in Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Cuba is actively trying to prevent this.

Removed by mod

Nowhere in my post did I say he needs to shut down oil production. I understand that’s not feasible. But we don’t need to be increasing it and giving out more permits for drilling than Trump did during his presidency.

Counting that as a win is crazy, that was the point of my response.

This coupled with the tariffs on importing cheap EVs are both clearly not wins for fighting climate change.

And before anyone feels the need to comment like they do on anything critical of Biden, yes trump would be worse. But less bad isn’t going to stop the sea levels from rising.

Lmao this is what you came up with? Most of these aren’t “progressive” especially when 4-5 are pushing more military or escalating trade wars. Plus are you really trying to say this is a major win

Biden scraps Trump’s paint scheme for Air Force One

Plus producing more oil than ever is on there as well. Like that’s not a win that’s completely counter to helping climate change.

Ahh I forgot about breakfast, that makes more sense. I was picturing butter drenched fires lol.

In one video, which has 30,000 views on TikTok, a young woman becomes increasingly exasperated as she attempts to convince the AI that she wants a caramel ice cream, only for it to add multiple stacks of butter to her order.

Lmao didn’t even know you could add butter to something at McDonald’s. If you can’t then it’s even funnier it decided that’s a thing.

Enlighten me what the “accurate story” is then.

Because it’s the least relevant party and the one we have the least influence on given Israel has been doing a slow genocide for decades and America has enabled it. If Israel hadn’t been doing this for decades Hamas wouldn’t even exist.

I don’t really care if it’s legal in the constitution, it’s “legal” in China too. My point is that I want it changed so there’s no forced labor in a country that that corporations can profit from it since it’s going to inherently drive conflicts of interest and I feel it too often gets ignored in this country.

Also with minorities being incarcerated at a much higher rate than white citizens. I find that just saying it’s paying back a debt to society fails to recognize the law isn’t being applied equally.

Also in many cases they’re already having to pay for their incarceration.

Great can we ban it in the US then?

In all, the UN verified “8,009 grave violations against 4,360 children” in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank – more than twice the figures for the DRC, the next worst place for violence against children.

Of the total number of child victims verified, 4,247 were Palestinian, 113 were Israeli.

In all, 5,698 violations were attributed to Israeli armed and security forces, and 116 to Hamas’s armed wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Israeli settlers were judged responsible in 51 cases, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s al-Quds Brigades was involved in 21.

Between 7 October and the end of December last year, the UN verified the killing of 2,051 Palestinian children, and said the process of attributing responsibility was ongoing, but the report noted: “Most incidents were caused by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas by Israeli armed and security forces.”

The report conceded it reflected only a partial picture of the situation in Gaza.

“Owing to severe access challenges, in particular in the Gaza Strip, the information presented herein does not represent the full scale of violations against children in this situation,” it said.

More than twice the 2nd highest on the list (DRC) and it’s likely not even close to the full count.

Absolutely disgusting.