6 ms·
Labeling fact-check articles in Google News
- sergiotapia 10y agoSurely this won't be abused to push an agenda. The Ministry of Truth prevails! Expect copious amounts of this: http://i.imgur.com/1Y0sN6b.png http://i.imgur.com/1Y0sN6b.png
- nathancahill 10y ago"Please visit my personal website for unbiased fact checking."
- witty_username 10y agoGenuinely curious; did you read the headline? Google is labeling articles based on the type; not saying whether something is a fact or not.
- pdx 10y agoIt's a trust symbol. You must know that. If Google puts those words in front of an article, it promotes that article as authoritative. They're not saying "Other Opinions", they're saying "Fact Check".
- witty_username 10y agoIt doesn't make it authoritative or a trust symbol. They're just saying the type of article, such as an editorial or fact check. I don't automatically trust fact checks as being the truth.
- DanBC 10y ago> I don't The need for sites like snopes and all the other fact checking sites shows that most people do in fact believe everything they read on the Internet, especially if it aligns with their existing biases. That's one of the reasons why the Coen brothers included the "this is a true story" thing - they wondered how many people would believe it the film was true if they put a simple bit of text at the beginning.
- nickff 10y agoI'd bet that most people who 'fact-check' something (political) on the internet are seeking to disprove it, because they disagreed. Most people seem to react to things they agree with by saying "see? That's just what I thought!"
- sergiotapia 10y agoYou need to read the article again. They are allowing anyone to label their site as a "Fact checking site". Just use ClaimReview and my-agenda-is-the-truth.com can be put in front of the eyes of millions of people who only read the title.
- witty_username 10y agoSo? Why would you trust someone just because they say they're fact checking?
- philipov 10y agoWell, it looks like google is the one saying they're fact-checking, and people trust google.
- witty_username 10y agoSo, that just makes me trust the page is fact checking, but doesn't tell me the accuracy of the page's fact checking.
- wyoh 10y agoI have to ask, is this a parody or did NBC really publish that?
- sergiotapia 10y agoOh it's real.
- philipov 10y agolink post or it didn't happen.
- dominotw 10y agohttp://lmgtfy.com/?q=nbc+news+fact+check+trump+acid+wash+twitter http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nbc+news+fact+check+trump+acid+wash+twi...
- philipov 10y agoFunny that google found it. I both manually scrolled through NBC's twitter feed (what a nightmare) and used twitter's advanced search looking for "FACT CHECK" and couldn't find it either way.
- sergiotapia 10y agohttps://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465 https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465 Mirror: http://archive.is/JBUzM http://archive.is/JBUzM
- dj-wonk 10y agoHere's the text behind the link (which I recommend!): The Claim: Trump says Clinton 'acid washed' her email server. The Truth: Clinton's team used an app called BleachBit; she did not use a corrosive chemical.
- politicsbluhh 10y agoMaybe I'm missing your point, but that seems legitimate to me. It seems inane to us, but there are plenty of people out there who probably believe actual chemicals were used, so clarifying that wasn't the case makes sense. And Donald Trump himself clearly did believe that. This comment[0] from yesterday has his full quotes explaining it all, so I won't bother repeating it here. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12711892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12711892
- sergiotapia 10y agoSee you could hyothetically have a point with this individual instance. But then you notice a trend of similar things happening over and over and over and over and over...
- 2AF3 10y agoLike every media organization suddenly doing 'fact checks', using the same term to push the same lies everywhere all at once.
- DefaultUserHN 10y agoWe're gonna see a ton of this... Trump: "Hillary washed her money." Media: "Wrong! Hillary laundered her money."
- pdx 10y ago'Fact Check' articles are often just as biased by what studies they cite, whose projections they choose to use, and what information they supress, as any other article. I would venture to say that the majority of 'Fact Check' articles are more biased than average articles, as they were specifically written to push or to punish a point of view. I wonder which sources Google will bless with this new trust symbol? Just kidding! We all know.
- insickness 10y agoPolitifact is owned by Tampa Bay Times who endorsed Hillary Clinton. They also endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012, Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. http://web.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-hillary-clinton-for-the-democratic-nomination/2265196 http://web.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-hillary...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jahewson 10y ago> I wonder which sources Google will bless with this new trust symbol? Just kidding! We all know. Enough of this nonsense. Try reading the actual blog post: > Publishers who create fact-checks and would like to see it appear with the “Fact check” tag should use that markup in fact-check articles. Perhaps you should go and check your own "facts" first.
- pdx 10y agoI did read that. Do you imagine that Breitbart or Drudge Report will be given the 'Fact Check' tag, even if they use that markup? You know they won't, but fake outrage is proven effective, isn't it?
- lisivka 10y agoIt can help to fight Russian lies (called «propaganda» or «informational war»[1] in Russia), but, IMHO, they will just create their own «true fact checking network» instead, with their own facts about «double standards of Western governments». I was puzzled by their tactic for long time until I found answer in Russian book for FSB newcomers: they use massive campaigns of FUD to break trust in victim country (their troll tasks are labeled like «inspire more suspects about government [in target country]», etc.) and to quickly hire agents in enemy organizations. Even USA cannot protect their own citizens from Russian «propaganda» (see case of John Demianuk[2]). [1]: http://cepa.org/reports/winning-the-Information-War http://cepa.org/reports/winning-the-Information-War [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Demjanjuk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Demjanjuk
- pdx 10y agoAre you seriously this naive, or are you astroturfing? The corporate media in the west is a lustily willing tool of neocon and neoliberal propaganda itself, no Russians needed. If you have ignored that fact for the last four decades, I wonder how you continue to ignore it in the face of the contents of the daily WikiLeaks dumps?
- lisivka 10y agoI am already in Russian kill list, since 2008, so I'm not naїve anymore. IMHO, you are mismatching regular propaganda with Russian propaganda (AKA Informational War). Please, read linked book above, it contains in depth explanation of the topic by European Union.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pdx 10y agoJohn Demjanjuk? What the hell does a Nazi guard have to do with Russia? As for your other link. I did look at it. Here's a paragraph talking about Russian Television News. The underlying message is simple: the United States is engaged in a selfish, ruthless bid for world domination. By implication, anything Russia or any other country can do to resist this is commendable and justified. It portrays the foundations of modern Euro-Atlantic security—including NATO enlargement to former communist countries and Western support for Ukraine—as hypocritical and unjust. I gotta say dude, I agree with Russia here. Putting Nukes on their border when we freaked out (rightly so) when they put nukes on ours in the 60's, is fucking hypocritical and unjust.
- trendia 10y agoImagine that this existed right before the Iraq war. If a news article said that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, how would Google's 'fact-check' algorithm work? 1. on the one hand, official reports suggested that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction 2. on the other hand, those reports were fabricated or based on false evidence Any 'fact checking' is limited by the information currently available to everyone. Further, not all evidence is presented equally well.
- nickff 10y agoThe most interesting part of those reports is that they were not based on fabricated or false evidence. Most intelligence agencies in the world said it was very likely that Iraq had some WMDs. This brings up many questions about what methods they used for estimating the likelihood, and what should have been the minimum level of certainty to trigger a military response. For answers to the first question, I suggest you read Tetlock's masterwork on prediction, "Superforecasting". I am still unsure what the answer is to the second question.
- trendia 10y agoIntelligence services didn't have bad intent, they had bad intel. Specifically, they used an informant (Curveball[0]) who was later discredited. However, this still supports my argument that Google's "fact-checking" algorithm will not tell us what's true or not, it will tell us what the prevailing belief is. But that's not what people want -- they want the truth. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
- nickff 10y agoIntelligence agencies usually rely on many unreliable sources, a few reliable ones, and interpretation of publicly available data; the interesting part is how they evaluate and interpret information from these different sources, which is one of the things Tetlock addresses. I am not sure that people actually want to know what is the truth; maybe one or two percent of the voters want to know the truth, but I very much doubt the number is much higher than that. People probably want to be told that what they believe is the truth when they go to these websites. There is a great deal of work on the subject of political ignorance (and self-deception), but I recommend the recent (and very readable) book "Against Democracy" by Jason Brennan for its summary of current evidence, and a proposed solution.
- amelius 10y agoIt seems that the masses are implementing a kind of online tribunal for politicians. This makes me wonder, would it be possible for a group of fact-checkers to successfully sue politicians based on their statements?
- xname2 10y agoFunny, can Nobel Price sue Obama to take the medal back?
- xname2 10y agoIs there any Google News guy here? May I ask why WikiLeaks in not trending in Google News? They have been publishing Podesta emails for weeks, but neither WikiLeaks / Podesta / DNC / HRC is in "Top stories".
- xir78 10y agoIf it cuts down on crazy conspiracy theories and fear mongering, that would be good. Political maneuvering and pivots are one thing, but dredging up UFO type conspiracy theories is really dangerous.
- koolba 10y agoYears of internet use have immunized me from relying on the word "fact" in the title of anything.
- dj-wonk 10y agoI wish https://angel.co/skeptive https://angel.co/skeptive still existed!
- qwrusz 10y agoFact: this is the best thread on HN right now. Comment upvote.