6 ms·

Bad move. A search engine should not be valuing certain websites more just because they proclaim to be "fact checkers". For example, politifact is usually trust

Bad move. A search engine should not be valuing certain websites more just because they proclaim to be "fact checkers". For example, politifact is usually trusty but some of their judgements are highly questionable. But Google will trust them and display their link prominently, even when it might be total bullshit.

camiller 10y ago
Yeah, but this isn't their search site, this is their news site. Google has become more than just a search engine.
- dignati 10y ago
  "We’re also launching the fact check tag in these countries on news mode in Search" So now it's also integrated into Google Search
  - camiller 10y ago
    I can honestly say I have never went into "news mode" on the main search site before. If I know I want to search for news stories I go to news.google.com and search there. At any rate you have to choose "news mode", it is not in the normal search screen.
jayrox 10y ago
I try to keep my facts in check, any examples of questionable politifact judgements?
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  Even if some were questionable, it doesn't mean there's a hidden agenda. Unlike the real 'fake news' outlets, where truth is intentionally skewed, hidden or muddied, with the intent of attracting the most eyeballs.
  - scholia 10y ago
    Attacking reputable sources -- which Trump does all the time -- is the main way to con supporters so they'll keep believing their #fakenews lies.
    - grzm 10y ago
      As is getting into arguments about fake news and continuing the meme. Figuring out how to work from a common set of facts is important, but this meme distracts from other important issues.
      - scholia 10y ago
        Fake news sites often have no "facts" at all. That's why people don't bother fact checking them. At worst, they'll crop up when somebody uses fake news for political purposes, example being Trump's racist birther lies, or his lies about crime rates. Today's problem is that Trump is using the #fakenews label to attack reputable sources that call him out on his lies. This is an attempt to establish a false equivalence, and it's the core issue. It's extremely damaging to American democracy. As many reputable news organizations (including the BBC) have pointed out, Trump is taking the same approach as Hitler, Mao and other dictators, and going directly against the line that previous US presidents have taken (at least, in public).
        grzm 10y ago
        I understand where you're coming from. Take a step back. When you argue about this, who is your audience? What do you want to accomplish? Are you trying to mobilize people who already agree with you? Reach people on the fence? Convince those who disagree? How does your message sound to your intended audience? Who you're trying to reach is up to you. I believe that using the term "fake news" is very unhelpful. At this point it's effectively without definition except as a perjorative dismissal, so you'll nearly always be discussing something with a different meaning for each party unless care is taken to define it upfront. If you're anti-Trump, you're continuing a meme used effectively by Trump himself. This meme is being used to further polarize, every side pointing to the others as being at fault. Edit to add: Please don't misinterpret this to mean I don't think critical reading of news and calling out misrepresentation of facts or outright lies is important. This is very important. Doing so under the banner of fake news distracts so much from this effort that it works against it.
- stvswn 10y ago
  Here you go:https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/politifact8217s-forked-tongue-1386964961 https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/politifa... ,and this one:http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414434/politifact-and-me-kevin-d-williamson http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414434/politifact-and-m...
  - Bahamut 10y ago
    Can't read the first source, but the National Review should never be cited as a legitimate source (the second link). It also reads like an almost raving rant...
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      I've seen excellent articles in National Review from time to time. I'm not a regular reader by any means, but a blanket statement like this isn't useful. It leans conservative, but it's also pretty upfront about that fact.
      - Strang 10y ago
        It doesn't just "lean conservative," it is an explicitly conservative opinion journal, and an excellent one. Even if you are not a conservative, it's a great source for understanding conservative thought.
    - CWuestefeld 10y ago
      I think you've just demonstrated why it's dangerous to have a single official keeper of truth. You're conflating policy judgments with factual correctness, but facts don't necessarily directly lead to policies. We must first judge the facts through our personal lenses of values, and that can lead to different conclusions. National Review certainly has a political bias, but they're generally pretty good with keeping contact with reality, factually. The fact that they arrive at different conclusions is no reason to try to blacklist them.
    - stvswn 10y ago
      It's just "National Review" and it's the preeminent conservative opinion journal. If it's illegitimate, then there can be no legitimate opposition I suppose? Maybe that's your point?
- dingo_bat 10y ago
  A nice analysis of one politifact article: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/trump-4-politifact-1.php http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/trump-4-politi... Note that there are many such examples. Another exceedingly silly piece: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/betsy-devos/education-nominee-betsy-devos-says-wyoming-school-/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/... It's almost like a child wrote it. It "fact-checks" a reasonable guess.
Angostura 10y ago
> But Google will trust them Google will label them as 'Fact Check'.
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  And that's kind of what I expect from a news aggregator. Perfect addition really.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mrtksn 10y ago
What if the popularity based content curation creates problems like mobs, genocide, destruction of democracies, destruction of alliances, destruction of the environment, destruction of institutions? Think of smaller non-digital social groups and how bad a rumour can affect somebodies lives and how helpful is to have somebody respected who can break the positive feedback loop. Pre-digital communities faced similar problems of the digital media and they were able to build mechanisms to cope with these. These companies are trying to implement similar mechanism to break these loops and are going to be effective only if the fact checking organisations do good job. If it works our, we can have the information spread freely but displayed in a context. So If you a fact checking organisation proves to be reliable, users will be able to have more accurate understanding of the reality. If the fact checkers fail, people will just disregard the judgements of these.
facepalm 10y ago
I somewhat agree, except that I don't think there is a useful objective metric for ranking search results. Or what would you suggest? PageRank can be played with SEO shenanigans. So if somebody searches for vaccines, how should the anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers be ranked? Just because somebody has an opinion, does it deserve to be presented as likely as every other opinion? What if I start a new movement vaccines have a chance to turn people into spiderman, should my theory also rank equally to other vaccine sites?
- losteverything 10y ago
  <So if somebody searches for vaccines, how should the anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers be ranked? Just because somebody has an opinion, does it deserve to be presented as likely as every other opinion? Real example. Bextra. Dr prescribed. Immediate loss of strength in legs especially climbing stairs. Pro sites gave all +++ chat sites gave common experiences. I want Google to not touch their search. They can put a good housekeeping tag on search results but don't remove them from my world
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - facepalm 10y ago
    You mean you would have wanted a search result that talked about the side effect you experienced? Fair enough, but it is not clear that it didn't show up because of Google ranking, or maybe it simply didn't exist? In any case, this seems to be about a real side effect, not an imagined one.
    - losteverything 10y ago
      I suppose I'm ignorant but I assumed search didn't qualify things. Like if it's true or not or somewhere in between. I used Google to see if others had bextra problems. And thankfully a link appeared. Now i hope these reactive changes don't eliminate content. Let my fingers do the clicking (so to speak)
SonicSoul 10y ago
you've pointed out something wrong with politifact but think about how many times it has been used to debunk falsehoods. One bad case doesn't negate the whole source, that bad case just needs to be fixed. it seems we're taking a step back with education, and credible news sources are being actively de-legitimized which will no doubt lead to more confusion and fake/propaganda news affecting large numbers of voters beliefs. I think Google has an opportunity to help with this problem. I think all tech companies should take this problem on so that voters are at least making their decisions based on facts. I think this should be the biggest priority right now.

camiller 10y ago

Yeah, but this isn't their search site, this is their news site. Google has become more than just a search engine.

dignati 10y ago
"We’re also launching the fact check tag in these countries on news mode in Search" So now it's also integrated into Google Search
- camiller 10y ago
  I can honestly say I have never went into "news mode" on the main search site before. If I know I want to search for news stories I go to news.google.com and search there. At any rate you have to choose "news mode", it is not in the normal search screen.

jayrox 10y ago

I try to keep my facts in check, any examples of questionable politifact judgements?

spiderfarmer 10y ago
Even if some were questionable, it doesn't mean there's a hidden agenda. Unlike the real 'fake news' outlets, where truth is intentionally skewed, hidden or muddied, with the intent of attracting the most eyeballs.
- scholia 10y ago
  Attacking reputable sources -- which Trump does all the time -- is the main way to con supporters so they'll keep believing their #fakenews lies.
  - grzm 10y ago
    As is getting into arguments about fake news and continuing the meme. Figuring out how to work from a common set of facts is important, but this meme distracts from other important issues.
    - scholia 10y ago
      Fake news sites often have no "facts" at all. That's why people don't bother fact checking them. At worst, they'll crop up when somebody uses fake news for political purposes, example being Trump's racist birther lies, or his lies about crime rates. Today's problem is that Trump is using the #fakenews label to attack reputable sources that call him out on his lies. This is an attempt to establish a false equivalence, and it's the core issue. It's extremely damaging to American democracy. As many reputable news organizations (including the BBC) have pointed out, Trump is taking the same approach as Hitler, Mao and other dictators, and going directly against the line that previous US presidents have taken (at least, in public).
      - grzm 10y ago
        I understand where you're coming from. Take a step back. When you argue about this, who is your audience? What do you want to accomplish? Are you trying to mobilize people who already agree with you? Reach people on the fence? Convince those who disagree? How does your message sound to your intended audience? Who you're trying to reach is up to you. I believe that using the term "fake news" is very unhelpful. At this point it's effectively without definition except as a perjorative dismissal, so you'll nearly always be discussing something with a different meaning for each party unless care is taken to define it upfront. If you're anti-Trump, you're continuing a meme used effectively by Trump himself. This meme is being used to further polarize, every side pointing to the others as being at fault. Edit to add: Please don't misinterpret this to mean I don't think critical reading of news and calling out misrepresentation of facts or outright lies is important. This is very important. Doing so under the banner of fake news distracts so much from this effort that it works against it.
stvswn 10y ago
Here you go:https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/politifact8217s-forked-tongue-1386964961 https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/politifa... ,and this one:http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414434/politifact-and-me-kevin-d-williamson http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414434/politifact-and-m...
- Bahamut 10y ago
  Can't read the first source, but the National Review should never be cited as a legitimate source (the second link). It also reads like an almost raving rant...
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    I've seen excellent articles in National Review from time to time. I'm not a regular reader by any means, but a blanket statement like this isn't useful. It leans conservative, but it's also pretty upfront about that fact.
    - Strang 10y ago
      It doesn't just "lean conservative," it is an explicitly conservative opinion journal, and an excellent one. Even if you are not a conservative, it's a great source for understanding conservative thought.
  - CWuestefeld 10y ago
    I think you've just demonstrated why it's dangerous to have a single official keeper of truth. You're conflating policy judgments with factual correctness, but facts don't necessarily directly lead to policies. We must first judge the facts through our personal lenses of values, and that can lead to different conclusions. National Review certainly has a political bias, but they're generally pretty good with keeping contact with reality, factually. The fact that they arrive at different conclusions is no reason to try to blacklist them.
  - stvswn 10y ago
    It's just "National Review" and it's the preeminent conservative opinion journal. If it's illegitimate, then there can be no legitimate opposition I suppose? Maybe that's your point?
dingo_bat 10y ago
A nice analysis of one politifact article: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/trump-4-politifact-1.php http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/trump-4-politi... Note that there are many such examples. Another exceedingly silly piece: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/betsy-devos/education-nominee-betsy-devos-says-wyoming-school-/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/... It's almost like a child wrote it. It "fact-checks" a reasonable guess.

Angostura 10y ago

> But Google will trust them Google will label them as 'Fact Check'.

spiderfarmer 10y ago
And that's kind of what I expect from a news aggregator. Perfect addition really.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mrtksn 10y ago

What if the popularity based content curation creates problems like mobs, genocide, destruction of democracies, destruction of alliances, destruction of the environment, destruction of institutions? Think of smaller non-digital social groups and how bad a rumour can affect somebodies lives and how helpful is to have somebody respected who can break the positive feedback loop. Pre-digital communities faced similar problems of the digital media and they were able to build mechanisms to cope with these. These companies are trying to implement similar mechanism to break these loops and are going to be effective only if the fact checking organisations do good job. If it works our, we can have the information spread freely but displayed in a context. So If you a fact checking organisation proves to be reliable, users will be able to have more accurate understanding of the reality. If the fact checkers fail, people will just disregard the judgements of these.

facepalm 10y ago

I somewhat agree, except that I don't think there is a useful objective metric for ranking search results. Or what would you suggest? PageRank can be played with SEO shenanigans. So if somebody searches for vaccines, how should the anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers be ranked? Just because somebody has an opinion, does it deserve to be presented as likely as every other opinion? What if I start a new movement vaccines have a chance to turn people into spiderman, should my theory also rank equally to other vaccine sites?

losteverything 10y ago
<So if somebody searches for vaccines, how should the anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers be ranked? Just because somebody has an opinion, does it deserve to be presented as likely as every other opinion? Real example. Bextra. Dr prescribed. Immediate loss of strength in legs especially climbing stairs. Pro sites gave all +++ chat sites gave common experiences. I want Google to not touch their search. They can put a good housekeeping tag on search results but don't remove them from my world
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- facepalm 10y ago
  You mean you would have wanted a search result that talked about the side effect you experienced? Fair enough, but it is not clear that it didn't show up because of Google ranking, or maybe it simply didn't exist? In any case, this seems to be about a real side effect, not an imagined one.
  - losteverything 10y ago
    I suppose I'm ignorant but I assumed search didn't qualify things. Like if it's true or not or somewhere in between. I used Google to see if others had bextra problems. And thankfully a link appeared. Now i hope these reactive changes don't eliminate content. Let my fingers do the clicking (so to speak)

SonicSoul 10y ago

you've pointed out something wrong with politifact but think about how many times it has been used to debunk falsehoods. One bad case doesn't negate the whole source, that bad case just needs to be fixed. it seems we're taking a step back with education, and credible news sources are being actively de-legitimized which will no doubt lead to more confusion and fake/propaganda news affecting large numbers of voters beliefs. I think Google has an opportunity to help with this problem. I think all tech companies should take this problem on so that voters are at least making their decisions based on facts. I think this should be the biggest priority right now.