El Faro hosts the interview with English subtitles.

It’s a map created by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and they host an interactive map that you can mouseover. They get their data from ICE, whose website includes a non-interactive map in the form of a PDF. ICE is encouraging people to visit their site and write to their local law enforcement, they’re not going to waste resources tracking every visitor to determine if they’re really part of the target audience for their message.

It shouldn’t need to be said that the link is to ice. The link clearly says “ice dot gov” in the text. This warning sounds overly paranoid.

How many Teslas are in your fleet currently and which ones?

We have four Tesla Model 3’s and 10 Tesla Model Y’s.

Police riding swastikars, what an unlikely paring.

Probably January 5th Capitol Riot defendants, unfortunately.

A reasonable criticism. Be the change you want to see in the world.

I enjoy her writing too. Her piece on the threat of Facebook entering the Fediverse does a great job of making the case.

Most of the darker skinned ones were already run over further back on the track.

They don’t want to give up their share of rich donors and insider trading privileges.

ABC News is a brand of Disney Advertising. It is lead by a conservative billionaire, and is not a left-biased organization.

Fact-checking is an essential tool in fighting the waves of fake news polluting the public discourse. But if that fact-checking is partisan, then it only acerbates the problem of people divided on the basics of a shared reality. Dave Van Zandt has admitted to a US-centric bias in MBFC’s ratings. It’s fairly easy to notice an American conservative lean in MBFC’s bias ratings, as well as their credibility ratings.

A consortium of fact-checking institutions have joined together to form the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), and laid out a code of principles. You can find a list of signatories as well as vetted organizations on their website. MBFC is not a signatory to the IFCN code of principles. As a partisan organization, it violates the standards that journalists have recognized as essential to restoring trust in the veracity of the news. Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all. Just like how the proliferation of fake news undermines the authority of journalism, the growing popularity of a fact-checking site by a political hack like Dave M. Van Zandt undermines the authority of non-partisan fact-checking institutions in the public consciousness.

Please choose “Kill” – to stop giving free advertising to MBFC on Lemmy.

• Lemmyverse.link for !world
• Lemmyverse.link for !politics

As stated elsewhere in the thread, my vote audit shows no participation from any of the 29 banned sock accounts the in the !news feedback thread, or this one for that matter. Please take the votes more seriously. If you’d like to spread FUD about the legitimacy of a vote, ask an admin to audit them first so you can state with evidence that a specific vote has been manipulated.

People trust the software to tell them what others are thinking, and if you successfully spread the false idea that votes that disagree with you are manipulated, you’re not just arguing in bad faith, you’re undermining the federated system we should all want to succeed.

Rule 1 Ban Count: 5

• @[email protected] (Permaban)
• @[email protected] (15 day ban)
• @[email protected] (15 day ban)
• @[email protected] (Permaban)
• @[email protected] (15 day ban)

Not a good look, mods.

Not just any bot spam - the most downvoted spam in Lemmy history. It is now more unpopular than the most popular Lemmy account is popular.

Wow, you’re really reaching there. I’m asking you to stop blaming women for men’s problems. There’s a group of people who aren’t doing that, and if you don’t want to be called a misogynist, follow the example of that group.

I think you misunderstood me. I do think men should have an analogous space. I support [email protected] 100%.

If you didn’t misunderstand me, men don’t need a space specifically for comparing their issues negatively against women’s issues. That space is everywhere and anywhere, as evidenced by this discussion occurring in [email protected] and collecting overwhelmingly positive upvotes.

We had to shutter [email protected] because of persistent and vocal judgement by a large population of Lemmy users, many from Lemmy.World. So no, talking about issues specific to their gender is definitely not a double standard where men get the short end of the stick.

This is why you get judged. Because you so nakedly put on display how much ignorance and little empathy you have for women’s issues.

[email protected] exists specifically for men who understand their issues in society are intersectional with women’s issues, and that solving them requires uniting to end patriarchy. Any discussion outside of that framing deserves the assumption that it’s a misogynist men’s pity party.

This is not a case of copy/pasting the same comment in multiple threads. Please look closer at the comments and the reports. One comment is repeated once, but that is due to it being topical to MBFC’s take on the BBC, and both articles were from the BBC.

Also, I’m alarmed you consider contextualization of MBFC in comments that reply to the Bot as ‘off-topic.’ The Bot created the topic of MBFC’s credibility by linking to it as an authoritative source. If a comment about the credibility of the BBC in reply to an article published by the BBC is on-topic, then a comment about the credibility of MBFC as a reply to a review published by MBFC is also on-topic.

I appreciate you reading and responding to my concern instead of censoring me like your fellow mod in !news and !world:

• Censored by !news as ‘Stop Spamming’
• Censored by !news as ‘Stop Spamming’
• Censored by !world as ‘Stop Spamming’
• Censored by !news as ‘Stop Spamming’
• Censored by !world as ‘Stop Spamming’
• Censored by !news as ‘Stop Spamming’
• Censored by !world as ‘Stop Spamming’
• Censored by !news as ‘Stop Spamming’

More than half of these occurred in a community you moderate. Do you approve of this use of the term ‘spamming’ to silence criticism?

Exposing a free API for anyone to use is not typical trade practice for respectable fact-checking operations. You may be able to get free access as a non-profit organization, and that may be worth persuing. On the other hand, there’s a fundamental problem in the disconnect between the goals of real fact-checking websites and the kind of bot you are trying to create.

Sorry, no mea culpa. Let me elaborate. Van Zandt claims to value IFCN fact-checkers in his ratings, then he uses that laundered credibility to gatekeep minority and politically inconvenient voices. Here’s a recent example brought to my attention.

It should be noted that despite no non-partisan fact checkers are listed on MBFC’s site as raising concerns about the The Cradle’s credibility, Van Zandt has arbitrarily placed it in the “Factual Reporting: Mixed” and “Credibility: Medium” categories. The concerns he posits about The Cradle’s 'lack of transparency, poor sourcing," and one-sidedness clearly apply to the weird right-wing guy who makes these opaque decisions about journalistic value.

If IFCN fact-checkers have issues with sources he’d like to denigrate, he’s happy to list them even if they’ve since been resolved. But they don’t make up the central criteria for his ‘methodology’ as he’d like you to believe. Meanwhile he’s free to make unreferenced claims about the credibility of others that uncareful readers take completely at face value.

All the concerns I have about The Cradle’s credibility have been developed in spite of MBFC, which is the opposite of what you want if your goal is accountability and media literacy. And thanks to their reliance on this charlatan, LW!news have recently punted what I think is a valuable report.

Just like every good lie has a little bit of truth in it, MBFC wouldn’t be able to spin its bullshit as well without usurping the credibility of real fact-checking organizations.

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? Fact-checking is an essential tool in fighting the waves of fake news polluting the public discourse. But if that fact-checking is partisan, then it only acerbates the problem of people divided on the basics of a shared reality.

This is why a consortium of fact-checking institutions have joined together to form the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), and laid out a code of principles. You can find a list of signatories as well as vetted organizations on their website.

MBFC is not a signatory to the IFCN code of principles. As a partisan organization, it violates the standards that journalists have recognized as essential to restoring trust in the veracity of the news. I’ve spoken with @[email protected] about this issue, and his response has been that he will continue to use his tool despite its flaws until something better materializes because the API is free and easy to use. This is like searching for a lost wallet far from where you lost it because the light from the nearby street lamp is better. He is motivated to disregard the harm he is doing to [email protected], because he doesn’t want to pay for the work of actual fact-checkers, and has little regard for the many voices who have spoken out against it in his community.

By giving MBFC another platform to increase its exposure, you are repeating his mistake. Partisan fact-checking sites are worse than no fact-checking at all. Just like how the proliferation of fake news undermines the authority of journalism, the growing popularity of a fact-checking site by a political hack like Dave M. Van Zandt undermines the authority of non-partisan fact-checking institutions in the public consciousness.