3 ms·

> It's just a way of getting a machine to identify partizan stories that are statistically likely to contain a higher proportion of lies, especially if they are

> It's just a way of getting a machine to identify partizan stories that are statistically likely to contain a higher proportion of lies, especially if they are from right-wing sources (Table 1). So, anything from the right should be a lie by default? Then google or whoever can just unrank the article to oblivion, since it statistically contains "lies" according to a biased majority? Do you see how dangerous this is?

scholia 10y ago
No: see Table 1. It's possible to write partizan stories without using false facts. The Other 98% does it. However, the right-wing sources used -- Eagle Rising, Right Wing News, Freedom Daily -- had a higher proportion of false facts than the left-wing sources. You must surely know that many right-wing sources are notorious for lying, especially Breitbart and Infowars. Being a right-wing source shouldn't mean your lies get a free pass. For some interesting information on how right-wing sources are obliged to lie or be rejected by their target audience, see http://uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudge-coulter-2016-8?op=1?r=US&IR=T http://uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudg...
Pokepokalypse 10y ago
I have NO PROBLEM with a social media site tagging a source as credible/un-credible. I can still choose to read or not read the story. I can look at the credibility rating, and wonder if A) the rating system is biased, and B) if a liar figured out how to game the automated rating system. Bias can be dealt with by being an open system. People can see the algorithm, data input, and judge whether the output is fair. Independent audit and review of the system would be miles better than what we have now. As far as bad-actors trying to game the system, that's another matter. Having a rating system is just a tool. It will make life easier for every consumer of news. Life with a spam filter is way better than no filter. We learned this in the 1990's after spending a decade writing them for email, when email became nearly useless as a tool because of spam.

scholia 10y ago

No: see Table 1. It's possible to write partizan stories without using false facts. The Other 98% does it. However, the right-wing sources used -- Eagle Rising, Right Wing News, Freedom Daily -- had a higher proportion of false facts than the left-wing sources. You must surely know that many right-wing sources are notorious for lying, especially Breitbart and Infowars. Being a right-wing source shouldn't mean your lies get a free pass. For some interesting information on how right-wing sources are obliged to lie or be rejected by their target audience, see http://uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudge-coulter-2016-8?op=1?r=US&IR=T http://uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudg...

Pokepokalypse 10y ago

I have NO PROBLEM with a social media site tagging a source as credible/un-credible. I can still choose to read or not read the story. I can look at the credibility rating, and wonder if A) the rating system is biased, and B) if a liar figured out how to game the automated rating system. Bias can be dealt with by being an open system. People can see the algorithm, data input, and judge whether the output is fair. Independent audit and review of the system would be miles better than what we have now. As far as bad-actors trying to game the system, that's another matter. Having a rating system is just a tool. It will make life easier for every consumer of news. Life with a spam filter is way better than no filter. We learned this in the 1990's after spending a decade writing them for email, when email became nearly useless as a tool because of spam.