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.

  • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    1·
    1 month ago

    Example of a “failed” fact check for The Guardian:

    “Private renting is making millions of people ill with almost half of England’s 8.5 million renters experiencing stress or anxiety and a quarter made physically sick as a result of their housing, campaigners have said.”

    OUR VERDICT

    A survey found almost a quarter of private renters agree that housing worries have made them ill in the past year. This doesn’t mean the sickness was specifically caused by renting privately as opposed to any other type of housing situation.

    This was an article entirely about stress and anxiety. Ignoring that stress and anxiety have physical effects on the body, the only way someone could conclude that the article was about like, toxic apartments and not stress and anxiety was if they failed to read the article at all and instead just read the headline and made up an article in their head.

    Such obviously agenda driven nitpicky bullshit is why people don’t respect the bot.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
      01·
      1 month ago

      Correlation is not causation. I had my first heart attack when I was renting. It wasn’t BECAUSE I was a renter. You literally cannot say someone is experiencing stress because they’re a renter, that’s a stretch.

      They could be experiencing stress by their overall socio-economic status which is also a reason they are renting, not the other way around.

      I had my 2nd heart attack as a home owner. Again, my status as a renter or owner has nothing to do with it.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        1·
        1 month ago

        “Renters experience stress and anxiety over renting to the point of illness” is not code for “and homeowners don’t feel any and are all perfectly healthy.” The only way to read it that way is if you’re trying to manufacture “fact checks” (or defend them, I guess). Same energy:

        They could be experiencing stress by their overall socio-economic status which is also a reason they are renting, not the other way around.

        Oh, do you think that if the article about stress from renting mentioned that financial problems contribute to that then it would make that fact check unfair?

        Because it does.

        Renters on average spend 41% of their income on housing costs, more than any other tenure, official figures show.

        Polly Neate, Shelter’s chief executive, said: “A whole generation of children risk growing up surrounded by this constant stress and anxiety. This cannot go on.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
          01·
          1 month ago

          Again, correlation is not causation.

          They aren’t stressed because they’re spending 41% of their income on housing, they’re stressed because of their low socio economic status which causes them to spend 41% of their income on housing.

          It’s a symptom, not a cause.

          Again, they’re putting the cart before the horse and MBFC correctly points out what they’re trying to say is factually false.

          • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            1·
            1 month ago

            This is actually a great example for how the bot actively discourages critical thinking, as it seems you have started from your conclusion (MBFC is correct), worked backwards, and apparently have not even read the article or anything I’ve said in response to you.

            They aren’t stressed because they’re spending 41% of their income on housing, they’re stressed because of their low socio economic status which causes them to spend 41% of their income on housing.

            Wow, I wonder if the article mentioned any other factors, like no-fault evictions and poorly maintained apartments, in the second paragraph?

            You keep talking about there being other factors like that wasn’t entirely what the article was about. Furthermore, almost every single one of those statements was about what advocacy organizations are claiming. Reporting what they are saying is factually inaccurate? Come off it.