Your condescending tone certainly makes you an unattractive conversation partner.

Then don't converse with me. Simple solutions are available given that this is an entirely you problem.

Who cares if it’s funded by advertisements? Why is that relevant? I would rather open funding by sponsors I can see than dark money or anonymous donors.

Entire books have been written on how advertisement models create biases in favor of the advertisers. If you don't understand why that's relevant what else can I say. Also, nobody is arguing for any dark money here. That's just a straw man you made. The argument is that the whole premise is flawed.

I’ve acknowledged the criticisms for the site, and have only made the argument that it’s a useful tool to use for media literacy. It’s based on US media, and approaches things based on the political circumstances of (primarily) the US and the anglosphere.

It's a useful tool for reinforcing mainstream western views and promoting these biases. People use it to shut down discussion and to smear sources outside western mainstream. This is problematic in the extreme.

Yes, MBFC it has a bias towards western political bias, because those are the circumstances within which the room was created. That’s a drawback, and, again, something that needs to be accounted for when using the tool.

And that's why it's highly problematic in a context of the media published by US adversaries. It should not be difficult to understand why, but here we are.

These are flaws that need to be taken into account when using it, but it doesn’t make to tool useless.

Given that people keep trotting it out to promote their political biases, seems that the tool is outright harmful.

But the fact remains that it is considered a reliable enough source to have qualified support for it on various university resource lists.

This is just appeal to authority.