I guess I see it like this: if I think something is inaccurate should I debunk it or should I post "this random right winger online says it isn't credible" (and MBFC is a right winger, but not a fascist)

It's just some zionist's blog site. You or I could make a site called official world bias meter and it'd be no more credible.

MBFC presents itself as "fact check" but it is really just subjective determinations slotted into an inappropriate analysis as judged by a political illiterate. The overall curve of "centrist" sources being high on facts simply reveals their own bias, where they fail to recognize the non-factual components of those sources, the train of think tanks, and whether topics are covered at all, or in certain contexts.

Ironically, the only time I ever see anyone trying to unironically make use of it and cite it is so that they can avoid critically engaging with media. They just say, "this website says it's bad" and turn their brains off, successfully short-circuiting cognitive dissonance.

He is literally just some guy with no expertise in critical media analysis. He just made a website where he gives his opinions on how much you should trust a source.

It's not a good source. Biased towards whatever the guy who created it things. Thinks left v right in terms of usa so just about everything is left of center even when center. Oh an propaganda is okay as long as it's western. Cause VOA and radio free Asia are given glowing marks

I can't recall if it is the MBFC person or the bot maker but one of them staunchy doesn't think there's a distinction between 'liberal' and 'left'.

So the inherent bias in their bias analysis is off the charts. Xzibit would be proud.