4 ms·
Still think this is a horrible move for a variety of reasons but I have one big question. Where can I access the reasons and organisation who have disputed the
by alva 10y ago
Still think this is a horrible move for a variety of reasons but I have one big question.
Where can I access the reasons and organisation who have disputed the link?
Without this information, this is even more terrible than I had previously thought it would be. If we cannot see who disputed the link and why, this is massive potential for abuse.
edit: Apparently the reason is given in a link
- morgante 10y ago> If the fact checking organizations identify a story as fake, it will get flagged as disputed and there will be a link to the corresponding article explaining why. You will be able to click through to read the full analysis of why a story is false.
- alva 10y agoAh bugger my bad, missed that. I hope the analysis also identifies the organisation/s who provided it.
- morgante 10y agoPresumably it'll be a link to the article on that organization's website.
- alva 10y agoI really hope that each disputed link is given a comprehensive response and not a cookie cutter response. I think a template response is probably the most likely outcome, especially considering the number of articles that are going to be checked by these organisations. Do they really have the resources available to give a bespoke response? I think there is danger if these organisations are allowed to submit template responses.