4 ms·
You're focusing on the content. Look at the source. 70news.wordpress.com should not be at the top of anybody's list of reliable news sources. Look at the topi
by alanbernstein 10y ago
You're focusing on the content.
Look at the source. 70news.wordpress.com should not be at the top of anybody's list of reliable news sources.
Look at the topic (e.g. from simple keywords). Look at the references (urls) mentioned in the article. Look at the timeliness.
There is plenty of information available to machine learning algorithms, without even needing to touch the natural language aspect.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago> You're focusing on the content. That's the only thing you can focus on. Why should someone be punished and labeled as fake if they're on a wordpress.com subdomain? Domain is just out, even spammy or weird looking domains may end up being popular / culturally fit. You would be preventing good journalistic folks from having any type of reach if you want to test against domains names, something that arguable may go away as far as the user is concerned in the next decade. I'm unconvinced there is anything but content that you can really go off of. Keywords are not even used in search results, why would they determine news legitimacy? Even references are not always useful.
- robrenaud 10y ago> Why should someone be punished and labeled as fake if they're on a wordpress.com subdomain? Because metadata can be super useful in making inferences about page quality. Pagerank exploited this idea a ton. If wordpress subdomains are more likely fake in a training corpus, then that piece of evidence should be counted.
- abiox 10y ago> Why should someone be punished and labeled as fake if they're on a wordpress.com subdomain i don't know about "labeled as fake", exactly, but it's possible that quickly and easily acquired urls (such as a wordpress subdomain) may display a different amount of reliability (per whatever heuristic) in comparison with various established urls.