• voracitude@lemmy.world
    3·
    7 days ago

    Along with others in this thread, I don’t think this feature would foster a healthy community - it would foster an echo chamber. I would rather see an analysis of the language of the article pointing out any logical fallacies used, weasel words, etc. than a “left-o-meter”. I have my own one of those based on my actual beliefs, not what someone decides my beliefs have to be to fit into the blue box.

    • ByteMe@lemmy.worldOP
      2·
      6 days ago

      So it’s a meter based on how left it is? I guess I didn’t take a good look at it, I thought it was something like something that checks the credibility of the website.

      • voracitude@lemmy.world
        2·
        6 days ago

        I mean, it’s a little more than that, but only a little. There’s a literal meter in your screenshot of how left or right the source is. “Credibility rating” requires us to trust MediaBiasFactCheck’s credibility rating system, which I don’t know enough about at the moment and so default to not trusting it.

        That’s why I say calling out the problematic structures would be more helpful - people could see it for themselves, right there in the article text, and then maybe also identify then without help later. This would foster healthier discussion than an echo chamber where people ignore a source based on its biases.

        Of course some sources would be more note than content, but then some sources have argued in court they’re not really news.