392
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
392 points (94.1% liked)
World News
38553 readers
2744 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A single media "facts checker" passing judgment on media sources (rather than on individual articles reporting supposed facts) can manipulate perception of hundreds of thousands of articles by merelly adjusting the bias ratings on certain media sources, whilst each individual media source can only ever manipulate its own reports, which is what makes such "fact checkers" ideal for state actors doing Propaganda Ops: they act as a trust nexus that can be used to promote or defuse the impact of countless reports from media outlets all over the World, well beyond the borders of said states.
Fact checking should be limited to checking actual reports of supposed facts, not passing judgement over media outlets (and by implication on the trustworthiness of all their reports), and the fact-checkings and fact-checkers themselves need to be fact-checked, similarly to how Wikipedia deals with edits on their articles.
If your "independent" fact-checker and its fact-checking aren't subject to open dispute in a well-publicized forum out of their countrol and they're passing judgment over entire media publishers rather than only checking each article reporting supposed facts, they're neither independent nor fact-checkers.
(And no, Think Tanks with suspiciously manipulative designed-for-a-purpose names aren't independent jack-shit-anything, including for oversight of fact-checkers. In fact given the modern trends on Think Thanks they're almost certainly the opposite)
So, you claim lots of things, but I miss you backing up your arguments with substantiated evidence like a link. Instead of keeping attacking my argument it would be nice if you'd actually provide evidence based info.
For example, in addition to my earlier point via this article.
"As director of the International Fact-Checking Network, I’ve watched this movement label fact-checkers as part of a “censorship industrial complex,” claiming that fact-checkers are trying to suppress debatable information. Ironically, this deeply misleading argument itself is aimed at suppressing critique and debate."
Sounds familiar?
I am just critical about newssources with mixed credibility when we are already facing a very polarised situation.
You're the one claiming that this entity is so high in the Trust Hierachy that they they should be treated as Trust Overseers of the World's newsmedia, which is quite a gigantic claim.
I'm just doing a pretty standard Trust Requirements Evaluation as it would be done, for example, in IT Security, which yields the pretty obvious result that "tall claims require proportionatelly ironclad evidence from multiple trusted sources" and pointing out the gain that bad actors could get in setting up such a "trust gatekeeper" with only fancy web frontends, astroturfers and useful idiots as "evidence" of them deserving the guardianship of the Trust in the World's newsmedia.
I'm not claiming they are anything, I'm pointing that we don't know what they are because:
People should have very strict demands on proof before trusting any such Trust Overseers of the World's Press.
When it comes to Trust, the default is to Do Not Trust until proven otherwise, not the other way around - trust must be earned, the more important the subject matter the harder should it be to earn it - so I don't need to prove distrust, it's you, who are making sky-scrapper sized claims that these people are Trust Overseers of all the newsmedia of the World, who has to provide evidence from sufficient trusted sources (and, no, self-referential chains of trust don't count) and of enough quality to back up such outsized claims.