We’ve had some trouble recently with posts from aggregator links like Google Amp, MSN, and Yahoo.

We’re now requiring links go to the OG source, and not a conduit.

In an example like this, it can give the wrong attribution to the MBFC bot, and can give a more or less reliable rating than the original source, but it also makes it harder to run down duplicates.

So anything not linked to the original source, but is stuck on Google Amp, MSN, Yahoo, etc. will be removed.

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    Numerous?? It cites five over the past five years, and they’re small errors that don’t change the overall point of the article and that to my understanding The Guardian later corrected. You have to know that the amount of articles The Guardian has put out in five days – let alone five years – turns that figure into a rounding error.

    Please explain how they could possibly have the same accuracy rating as Breitbart.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      20 days ago

      It cites 5, numerous means there are many more, but these are the cited examples.

      They don’t have the same accuracy as Breitbart, again, Breitbart is Questionable and is on their list of fake news sources, the Guardian is not.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        Then why does it list them on the same tier for “Factual Accuracy”? It calls the ranking “Factual Accuracy”, as in literally the extent to which they get facts right. And those are “MIXED” for both sources.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          20 days ago

          Because there’s more to a rating than factual accuracy.

          For example:

          https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/10/10/chris-wallace-harris-has-plateaued-trump-is-now-a-slight-favorite/

          “Chris Wallace: Harris Has ‘Plateaued’ — Trump Is Now a Slight Favorite”

          Yeah, that’s factually accurate. Chris Wallace did, in fact, say that.

          “I’m hearing this from top Republicans and top Democrats, that Harris seems to have stalled out a bit in the last couple of weeks. You know, she had a great rollout, great convention, very successful debate, but she seemed to have plateaued. One top Republican said two weeks ago, I would’ve said that she was a slight favorite. He said today I’d say Trump is a slight favorite.

          He was quoting some un-named source, he didn’t make that assertation himself, which makes the headline dishonest, but those words did come out of Wallaces mouth.