3 ms·

> They are either "left wing bias" (RationalWiki) or one with an agenda, divorced from reality (Conservapedia). #/bin/env bash read -p "Please enter your

> They are either "left wing bias" (RationalWiki) or one with an agenda, divorced from reality (Conservapedia). #/bin/env bash read -p "Please enter your personal bias (e.g. conservative, liberal, progressive, etc.) philisophy: " bias echo "they are either ${bias}ly biased or with an agenda, divorced from reality."

npteljes 3y ago
Do you think the same about OP's statement that I reflected on, stating "you can either have a news/information source with a left-wing bias or a total cesspool of untrustworthy information with a glaringly obvious agenda"? As a point of reference, if you search high traffic websites with "Left bias" and also with "Right bias"[0], it will turn out that the average factuality of the sources are higher on the "Left bias" news sources. This makes me think that the point of reference, the "center", is now off-center, to the right. To the point where actual reality seems "left". "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias". Considering this, sources even further to the right will of course have worse information, same as they would on the far left. And this is for news sources - what I added was that I observed the same for wikis. [0] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/?bias=Left&traffic_estimate=High%20Traffic https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/?bias=Left&tr...
karmakurtisaani 3y ago
That's a cute way to say essentially nothing. Edit: feel free to defend the Conservapedia's take on climate change for example https://www.conservapedia.com/Climate_change https://www.conservapedia.com/Climate_change. Absolutely laughable bullshit.
- npteljes 3y ago
  While it was not said out loud, it reminded me of the "both sides" fallacy. Like how schools should teach both sides, creationism and evolution, as if both have the same merit. Likewise, the bash script implies that bias is bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

npteljes 3y ago

Do you think the same about OP's statement that I reflected on, stating "you can either have a news/information source with a left-wing bias or a total cesspool of untrustworthy information with a glaringly obvious agenda"? As a point of reference, if you search high traffic websites with "Left bias" and also with "Right bias"[0], it will turn out that the average factuality of the sources are higher on the "Left bias" news sources. This makes me think that the point of reference, the "center", is now off-center, to the right. To the point where actual reality seems "left". "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias". Considering this, sources even further to the right will of course have worse information, same as they would on the far left. And this is for news sources - what I added was that I observed the same for wikis. [0] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/?bias=Left&traffic_estimate=High%20Traffic https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/?bias=Left&tr...

karmakurtisaani 3y ago

That's a cute way to say essentially nothing. Edit: feel free to defend the Conservapedia's take on climate change for example https://www.conservapedia.com/Climate_change https://www.conservapedia.com/Climate_change. Absolutely laughable bullshit.

npteljes 3y ago
While it was not said out loud, it reminded me of the "both sides" fallacy. Like how schools should teach both sides, creationism and evolution, as if both have the same merit. Likewise, the bash script implies that bias is bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance