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.

What a terrible idea.

MBFC is already incredibly biased.

It should be rejected not promoted.

Choosing one organization to be the arbiter of truth and bias gives them way too much power. I think fact checking should be the responsibility of whoever reads the article.

I'm just gonna drop this here as an example:

• https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-jerusalem-report/
• https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-jerusalem-post/

The Jerusalem Report (Owned by Jerusalem Post) and the Jerusalem Post

This biased as shit publication is declared by MBFC as VEEEERY slightly center-right. They make almost no mention of the fact that they cherry pick aspects of the Israel war to highlight, provide only the most favorable context imaginable, yadda yadda. By no stretch of the imagination would these publications be considered unbiased as sources, yet according to MBFC they're near perfect.

It has been pointed out multiple times that mbfc is ran by a Zionist.

There is no way the mod team is not aware of this by now so it must be on purpose.

Oh, lovely. Ministry of Truth Bots...

This is predicated on the assumption that those organizations are neutral arbitrators of facts, but they aren't.

They might have a better gauge on reality than OAN, or PatriotEagleNews.ru, but that doesn't mean platform moderators should present them as if they are a source of universal truth.

People can be critical of posts, comments, and their sources, without the heavy hand of moderators using a privatized Ministry of Truth.

We don't even have to look very far back to see how platform level "fact checking" systems are used and abused to silence and suppress information that goes against mainstream narratives or is viewed as politically damaging.

I love this, but I would like to state that Media Bias Fact Check seems to have a pro-Israel bias.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mondoweiss/

• Overall, we rate Mondoweiss as Left Biased and Questionable due to the blending of opinion with news, the promotion of pro-Palestinian and anti-zionist propaganda, occasional reliance on poor sources, and hate group designation by third-party pro-Israel advocates.

I feel like “blending of opinion with news” and “occasional reliance on poor sources” is all that really need be said.

That's just introducing 2 more sources of bias

Given the overwhelmingly negative response from the community, what is the justification for leaving the bot in place? Is it because the moderators think they know better than everyone else?

could you have the bot automatically unvote its posts (make it 0) so it goes under new comments when sorted by votes?

the spoiler thing doesn't work on eternity and it kinda hides everything under it being so long

Bot: Hmm this article reflects reality, thus it is biased to the left.

Using charged language like that constitutes disinformation and is reprehensible. Imagine if viewers started disregarding a source on account of your bot declaring it biased.

Shameful.

Remove that. It’s too US centric. I don’t want that here.

So is it time for a new news community then if the admins don't want to listen?

Why does the bot spend so much space asking for donations to mediabiasfactcheck.com and thanking them for an api? Especially when it's one of the few areas not in a spoiler block so it's always shown?

Please get rid of it. I'll figure my own truth from facts I descern are true. I don't need someone else telling me what to believe. Especially with the election coming up...

Media Bias Fact Check is totally meaningless in world news since the overwhelming majority of international news coverage seen in the west is filtered through just three global agencies, AP, AFP and Reuters and they always toe a pro US/Nato line.