• Catoblepas
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    5 months ago

    Rating it as though they’ve published something that is untrue (what the average person expects from a factuality rating) when they explicitly haven’t failed fact checks is stupid AF.

    • USSMojave@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Just because an opinion piece doesn’t fail a fact-check doesn’t mean it’s not an opinion piece, and it should be labeled as such

      • Catoblepas
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        So factor that into the bias rating, not the factuality rating, because that is about bias and not whether or not they have published things that are untrue.

          • Catoblepas
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            Presenting things that are untrue is a factuality issue. You are describing bias.

            • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              So you’re saying I’m right because an opinion is an opinion and not true or untrue. Presenting an opinion as either is a factuality issue.

              • Catoblepas
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                So you’re saying I’m right because an opinion is an opinion and not true or untrue.

                If it’s not untrue then it shouldn’t affect the factuality rating, not sure why this is hard to get.

                Incidentally as another user pointed out in this thread, LGBTQ Nation does label their opinion pieces as such. Until MBFC presents evidence otherwise, I’m going to conclude that what they have deemed “undisclosed opinions” are things like “trans kids exist and deserve protection”.

      • prole
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Did you not see the screenshot that was posted? It is labeled.

    • WrathUDidntQuiteMask@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Are you inferring that it’s not possible for an LBGTQ+ publication to misrepresent facts?

      To me the rating is less about how “pro,” “anti” or “in-between” something is, and more about factual reporting of details

      • Catoblepas
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        Are you inferring that it’s not possible for an LBGTQ+ publication to misrepresent facts?

        No, which is why my comment specifically pointed out they failed no fact checks.

        • WrathUDidntQuiteMask@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yea that’s not at all what I said. But don’t let that get in the way of posting pictures of comments someone else made about unrelated subjects!

      • Catoblepas
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        Again, I think the average person is going to see factuality rating and read it as “how much of their reporting is true or untrue” and not “what amount of their reporting could potentially contain opinions according to the guy that runs MBFC”.

    • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      If you sell opinion pieces as news then yes, that’s not truthful and a completely valid criticism as people could misread it as actual news. You should rather ask why they did not fix this yet, which would not just improve their rating quite a bit, but also be an overall improvement for the readers and the overall concept of sharing information (and it is trivially easy to do so too). Crying about that feels rather weird and like agenda pushery.

      • Catoblepas
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Considering opinion pieces are labeled maybe MBFC should either update the rating or give specific examples.

          • Catoblepas
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            I kinda think it’s their responsibility to keep their site updated when they ask for money for the express purpose of doing that.

            • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              They literally only have donations set up and almost 10k sites listed. Please stop the entitled shit when it is pretty clear that the whole site relies heavily on user feedback too. Either you join in making it better and becoming a more decent human being in the process, or you can continue to cry about a free service not being 100% up to date. And lets be honest here, if you’d truly care about that news site and its entry then you would’ve done the former already.