It only accepts American domains. It knows bbc.com, but good luck with bbc.co.uk

No, what do you mean, MBFC is not US centric at all

Many such cases

shaking in fear?

Too much pillow talk?

…oh, they’re talking about a shirt

I imagine most historical figures will be profoundly disappointed when they learn of modern politics… No god-emperors, no global communism, just a capitalist hellhole full of near-fascist governments. Mussolini might have a field day, but imagine summoning the ghost of Ramesses II or Vladimir Lenin into today’s political landscape

I feel like a total idiot now, some time between reading the original comment and my reply my brain substituted BBC for The Guardian, sorry for wasting both our times on that :'D

My criticism still stands, because it does rate The Guardian as mixed as well.

I shouldn’t have to be the one to provide evidence, because MBFC is the site that is making the claim that Breitbart is on the same level of factuality as the BBC. They say that both had numerous factual errors over the years. I’m not disputing that, the BBC is not great when it comes to many issues. But the BBC consists of several broadcasting channels, radio and news outlets. They publish several dozen pieces a day. Breitbart has nowhere near that volume. I was making the point that volume does play a big role, because for credibility, it is the relative accuracy that counts, not the absolute number of mistakes. If you don’t see that point, we can stop right here, the discussion would be pointless.

The thing you are asking for, me providing specific counts for mistakes in reporting, is next to impossible. Still, here is an independent report, focused on statistics as reported by the BBC, that finds that in their sample about 4% of statistics were further challenged, so the number of false statistics reported is likely about that number:

https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/stats_impartiality/content_analysis.pdf

As for Breitbart, and I can’t believe I have to spell this out, here is their introduction on Wikipedia:

Its content has been described as misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by academics and journalists.[8] The site has published a number of conspiracy theories[9][10] and intentionally misleading stories.[11][12] Posts originating from the Breitbart News Facebook page are among the most widely shared political content on Facebook.[13][14][15][16]

If you think that these two are even remotely similar or deserve to be in the same category of factuality, I don’t know what else to say to you.

As pointed out above me, MBFC seems to think so. It gives both a MIXED rating. I don’t really get what you’re trying to argue here? Am I misunderstanding something?

If you put out 100 articles and 5 have mistakes, that is very different than if you put out 10 and 5 have mistakes. You’re not arguing that the BBC and Breitbart are the same level of credibility, right?

I hate MBFC and this bot with a passion. It’s misleading, inaccurate, US-centric and there’s no reason anyone should take it serious, especially not in world news.

no /s needed

8TB disks are reasonable to get nowadays. Get a NAS that you can slot 6 of them in, set up parity raid and you got 40TB easily accessible, decently redundant storage. Much better than a single 40TB disk, and probably still cheaper

Young conscripts from western Russia usually, the type with parents in Moscow that Putin actually cares about

the grave

West Philippine sea, and rename the Philippine sea to East Philippine sea?

They couldn’t find any trans people to be mad at so they made them up, to the detriment of two cis athletes. So, both.

Capitalist want you to believe this is an efficient way to organize society

Exactly

Okay, but that still seems like a call to inaction so far. Do you have alternative suggestions?

real socialism is when you crush socialist independence movements