4 ms·

If you're trying to make fun of fact checking fake news, that is a totally facetious comparison. The whole point of fact checking is that the fact check / rebut

If you're trying to make fun of fact checking fake news, that is a totally facetious comparison. The whole point of fact checking is that the fact check / rebuttal is put side by side or preceding the original claim, with evidence and its own citations. You're not prevented from seeing the original claim, even if statistically fewer people see the original claim. If the Communist party decided to replace all online censorship with modals saying how wrong the website was, and you could just click through the modal, I would consider that progress in China.

jwtadvice 10y ago
Nah, the "fake news" filters make it hard to post the content, make it hard to reshare the content, make it less likely to show up in feeds, and mark it so that it is less likely to be read.
- argonaut 10y ago
  I hold governments to a higher standard than companies.
  - tajen 10y ago
    Unless you see the government as a company that has grown to a monopolistic size compared to the other ones. It's just an image to explain the rationale of those who don't trust it more than companies.
  - jwtadvice 10y ago
    Given that the same people circulate between them, and they work together on a regular basis, and they both are critical to the survival of the society that exists today: I hold them to the same high standard. I don't give breaks to golden parachutes or to lobbied appointments.
lupin_sansei 10y ago
That would be a brilliant solution to have the fake news rebutted side by side. But I fear the gatekeepers will just block what they see as fake news.
- argonaut 10y ago
  Give an example of gatekeepers blocking fake news. Reply to below: I am not talking about government censorship, which is obvious, since I just talked about it. I am talking about companies using fake news as an excuse to block what they believe is fake news.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    what they see as fake news. Are the things censored by China not good examples? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_China Or are you talking about in the West? (Why ask for extant examples for things that are being proposed, but not yet enacted, regarding fake news?)
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Reply to your reply: No major media companies are doing anything one way or the other so, like I said, it doesn't make sense to ask for examples. But see this for a preview: http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/2/13819696/facebook-bs-detector-blocked-fake-news http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/2/13819696/facebook-bs-detec...
mordocai 10y ago
> The whole point of fact checking is that the fact check / rebuttal is put side by side or preceding the original claim, with evidence and its own citations. I'm not well read on this topic but I would like to be. I've never heard this solution presented, likely due to my lack of research. Can you provide citations of this solution being suggested and/or implemented? Besides that, while I agree it is better than pure blocking I still feel it would be a government over-reach. I wouldn't like a company doing it either.
- NoodleIncident 10y ago
  http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/12/news-feed-fyi-addressing-hoaxes-and-fake-news/ http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/12/news-feed-fyi-addressing...
laretluval 10y ago
Seems that the people who are concerned about fake news aren't advocating your strategy, but rather are advocating filtration. To keep out pernicious foreign lies, just like China.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  User-side filtration is fine, it's when you can't disable it that it become problematic. So not like China at all, in that rather crucial respect.
xiaoma 10y ago
More likely the gp was making fun of the way people tend to jump into discussions about Chinese free speech, pollution, racism or military aggression against its neighbors with "but America does it too!" comments.
kapitza 10y ago
> The whole point of fact checking is that the fact check / rebuttal is put side by side or preceding the original claim And of course, the original source's surrebuttal to the rebuttal is put side by side with that. Truth is so strong, it can let error have the last word... Oh wait, that's not how it works at all. In fact I've hardly ever seen this "side-by-side" thing. Usually what I see is the original source paraphrased, then reduced to its most mockable possible strawman. Could you provide some examples of what you see as fact-checking done right? > I would consider that progress in China I would consider it progress in America. It would certainly be progress on Twitter. (I recall one tweet saying "So Twitter has gone from a sewer, to a sewer with unexplained disappearances.")

jwtadvice 10y ago

Nah, the "fake news" filters make it hard to post the content, make it hard to reshare the content, make it less likely to show up in feeds, and mark it so that it is less likely to be read.

argonaut 10y ago
I hold governments to a higher standard than companies.
- tajen 10y ago
  Unless you see the government as a company that has grown to a monopolistic size compared to the other ones. It's just an image to explain the rationale of those who don't trust it more than companies.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  Given that the same people circulate between them, and they work together on a regular basis, and they both are critical to the survival of the society that exists today: I hold them to the same high standard. I don't give breaks to golden parachutes or to lobbied appointments.

lupin_sansei 10y ago

That would be a brilliant solution to have the fake news rebutted side by side. But I fear the gatekeepers will just block what they see as fake news.

argonaut 10y ago
Give an example of gatekeepers blocking fake news. Reply to below: I am not talking about government censorship, which is obvious, since I just talked about it. I am talking about companies using fake news as an excuse to block what they believe is fake news.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  what they see as fake news. Are the things censored by China not good examples? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_China Or are you talking about in the West? (Why ask for extant examples for things that are being proposed, but not yet enacted, regarding fake news?)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Reply to your reply: No major media companies are doing anything one way or the other so, like I said, it doesn't make sense to ask for examples. But see this for a preview: http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/2/13819696/facebook-bs-detector-blocked-fake-news http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/2/13819696/facebook-bs-detec...

mordocai 10y ago

> The whole point of fact checking is that the fact check / rebuttal is put side by side or preceding the original claim, with evidence and its own citations. I'm not well read on this topic but I would like to be. I've never heard this solution presented, likely due to my lack of research. Can you provide citations of this solution being suggested and/or implemented? Besides that, while I agree it is better than pure blocking I still feel it would be a government over-reach. I wouldn't like a company doing it either.

NoodleIncident 10y ago
http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/12/news-feed-fyi-addressing-hoaxes-and-fake-news/ http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/12/news-feed-fyi-addressing...

laretluval 10y ago

Seems that the people who are concerned about fake news aren't advocating your strategy, but rather are advocating filtration. To keep out pernicious foreign lies, just like China.

anigbrowl 10y ago
User-side filtration is fine, it's when you can't disable it that it become problematic. So not like China at all, in that rather crucial respect.

xiaoma 10y ago

More likely the gp was making fun of the way people tend to jump into discussions about Chinese free speech, pollution, racism or military aggression against its neighbors with "but America does it too!" comments.

kapitza 10y ago

> The whole point of fact checking is that the fact check / rebuttal is put side by side or preceding the original claim And of course, the original source's surrebuttal to the rebuttal is put side by side with that. Truth is so strong, it can let error have the last word... Oh wait, that's not how it works at all. In fact I've hardly ever seen this "side-by-side" thing. Usually what I see is the original source paraphrased, then reduced to its most mockable possible strawman. Could you provide some examples of what you see as fact-checking done right? > I would consider that progress in China I would consider it progress in America. It would certainly be progress on Twitter. (I recall one tweet saying "So Twitter has gone from a sewer, to a sewer with unexplained disappearances.")