3 ms·

Nice! I love this idea. What happens when most sites that deliver news have at least some bullshit?

• devoply 10y ago
  That's really the issue. It's just a question of whose bullshit. Bullshit of the rich media mughals? Right wing conservatives? Liberal elite? Environmentalists? Alt-right nutters? At the end of the day, media has stopped being about objectivity, just as long as there is a semblance, anything goes. People tell lies, or next to lies in order to get people to see things their ways. It's just a question of the level of sophistication of those lies. Outright lies are the lowest level of sophistication, all the way up to manufactured consent.
  • jjawssd 10y ago
    How can you distinguish between news that pisses a lot of people off and news that is fake/spam? If I write a blatant hit piece which is based entirely on factual information a lot of people will report it because they are upset over it but it doesn't change the fact that is truthful. How do you prevent people from suppressing opposing view points by reporting them as fake?
• tptacek 10y ago
  The idea isn't to target sites that occasionally run false stories; it's to target fakenews webspam sites.
  • invisible 10y ago
    I never used the word "occasionally." Some news outlets run outright false stories that _are as bad as_ "fakenews" sites daily/weekly. Impling that those stories aren't as bad as the "fakenews" schemes and that we can't automate hiding those is just false. I was merely pointing out that there could be more to address this problem and that I love this idea so far (I read the readme).