Because the information is quite badly sourced in some ways and includes a lot of caveats. And the moderators of the subreddit have not added said caveats to the bot message.
Would you downvote a bot that said the rotten tomatoes score in every post in a sub about movies?
Personally I think rotten tomatoes is a terrible guide to tell if a movie is good… But I still cant see why id downvote it, it is just extra information I can ignore if wanted.
Bad comparison. Rotten Tomatoes is user generated. And opinions on movies have much less reprocussions than opinion on news sources. Rotten tomatoes makes clear it is the “opinion” on the movie.
MBFC is some random guy with no credential’s opinion. But they present their opinion as a neutral impartial rating.
Also I don’t downvote, disabled on my instance, just saying why others might.
Some random guy may not be the best, but also a hivemind can often be just as bad. For instance if lemmy.ca ranked news sources, and lemmy.ml ranked the same news sources, I imagine the results would be different.
I agree the impact is different for sure, I just used the first “ranked” system that came to mind that I figured you would be familiar with.
Example. If you rank Empire Strike back a 5/10 and I rank it a 8/10, then we rank Avatar and I give it a 4/10 and you give it a 9/10, on imdb they would both be ranked a 6.5/10. on RT one would be a 100% and the other 50%. (Why I don’t care for RT)
Because the information is quite badly sourced in some ways and includes a lot of caveats. And the moderators of the subreddit have not added said caveats to the bot message.
Would you downvote a bot that said the rotten tomatoes score in every post in a sub about movies?
Personally I think rotten tomatoes is a terrible guide to tell if a movie is good… But I still cant see why id downvote it, it is just extra information I can ignore if wanted.
Bad comparison. Rotten Tomatoes is user generated. And opinions on movies have much less reprocussions than opinion on news sources. Rotten tomatoes makes clear it is the “opinion” on the movie.
MBFC is some random guy with no credential’s opinion. But they present their opinion as a neutral impartial rating.
Also I don’t downvote, disabled on my instance, just saying why others might.
Some random guy may not be the best, but also a hivemind can often be just as bad. For instance if lemmy.ca ranked news sources, and lemmy.ml ranked the same news sources, I imagine the results would be different.
I agree the impact is different for sure, I just used the first “ranked” system that came to mind that I figured you would be familiar with.
Example. If you rank Empire Strike back a 5/10 and I rank it a 8/10, then we rank Avatar and I give it a 4/10 and you give it a 9/10, on imdb they would both be ranked a 6.5/10. on RT one would be a 100% and the other 50%. (Why I don’t care for RT)
But your right, not a fair comparison
Also, movies are entertainment, not misinformation and disinformation shaping our society, so there’s less scrutiny.
(Yeah, media shapes our views too, but not as much as direct news journalism.)