1323·
2 days agoI used that link to look up the source. It wasn’t here so I posted it here. I do the same with archive links.
I didn’t report this and don’t have a problem with it. In general, the fact that they don’t disclose the country they operate out of is problematic since we can’t know if they’re operating from a place where telling the truth is illegal.
Edit: I should also say that it’s important they’ve never failed a fact check. I don’t really care about them having editorial bias as long as we know what it is.
I post links if I’m unfamiliar with a source and look them up, regardless of their conclusions. Sometimes I’ll do research on a news source if they don’t have an MBFC entry and share that as well. I assume there are others who are like, “cool story but… who the fuck is this?” I hope it spares them the extra steps.
If some people don’t like that, I don’t care. I count MBFC downvotes as upvotes. It helps people I’m overjoyed to help and pisses off people that I’m pretty okay with pissing off. I’m not letting a bunch of greasy misinfo ghouls call the shots.
First, registering and operating are two different things. Human beings are not just bound by the laws of the country their corporation is registered in.
But… so what? If the information we have shows something that’s problematic then new information becomes available that addresses our concerns… that’s fine. That’s how shit’s supposed to work. MBFC is an information source, not the information source.
etc etc etc
Look, I’ve met my quota on debating weird MBFC conspiracy theorists. The reality is there are a lot of people who don’t know what they’re talking about posting links to webpages they haven’t read. I’m not interested in someone’s poorly thought out take on how they say the Guardian is quadruple Mein Kampf, or whatever. If you have links to peer-reviewed research that support those conclusions, I’d be happy to see them. You don’t, though, because every bit of academic work on MBFC says those people are dead wrong.