5 ms·

Won't people just mark disputed to stories and articles they don't agree with? There should be a penalty for doing this. Perhaps remove their ability to dispute

Won't people just mark disputed to stories and articles they don't agree with? There should be a penalty for doing this. Perhaps remove their ability to dispute stories after two or three confirmed offenses. Even on Hacker News where the average user is much more responsible and thoughtful, I've gotten downvoted and flagged to death for opinions/comments/links that don't fall within the echo chamber.

ythn 10y ago
So who gets to be the ultimate keeper of truth? If CNN spins a story to be police brutality, but you happen to be an eyewitness who saw that it was actually self-defense, can you mark the CNN story as disputed? Who decides if you are right or wrong?
- deegles 10y ago
  Unbiased algorithms. /s
- harshreality 10y ago
  If the race of the victim isn't Caucasian, it's obviously police brutality because of the power and authority disparity between police as an institution and people of the victim's race. I'm not even joking. That's an accepted (approximate) SJW definition. It makes perfect sense if you accept that SJW definition, where violence and brutality and racism depend more on relative social power of the primary social groups of the involved persons, rather than facts relating to the incident in question. When you start drinking that kool-aid, it's a small step to believe that the mere existence of police vis-à-vis historically disadvantaged minority groups is violence, abuse, and brutality. An incident isn't even required. When there is an incident, it's merely a manifestation of the underlying police discrimination, violence and brutality inherent in the system.
  - nodesocket 10y ago
    > If the race of the victim isn't Caucasian, it's obviously police brutality because of the power and authority disparity between police as an institution and people of the victim's race. I can't tell what you are tying to say here. I hope you are not saying if the person is not white then by default it's police brutality.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      harshreality is saying that's what "SJWs" believe.
      - nodesocket 10y ago
        Ok, sorry harshreality, my bad. I agree with him that SJW (social justice warriors) are incredibly hypocritical and disconnected. They operate in herd mentality standing on their soapbox of equality, fairness, and collective good. If you don't agree with SJW, then you are a racist, sexist, xenophobe.
- roymurdock 10y ago
  News stories that are reported as fake by people on Facebook may be reviewed by independent third-party fact-checkers. These fact-checkers will be signatories of the non-partisan Poynter Code of Principles. A story may be marked as disputed if these fact-checkers find the story to be fake.
- empath75 10y ago
  To me, I think the veracity of individual stories aren't as important as the process of reporting and managing the life cycle of the story. Are sources being double checked, did they attempt to contact the subject of the story for comments, do they have a process for reviewing bad stories and issuing retractions? That's really the difference between The NY Times and some random Macedonian blogger. It's possible with all of that that the times can be wrong and somebody blogging from their moms basement can have the story right, but in the long run, you're better off getting your news from an organization that follows journalistic best practices.
- everdev 10y ago
  +1. In the end we all have to trust someone. Even Kyrie Irving thinks the world is flat because he chooses not to trust scientists or look out the window of an airplane. While I believe in human-driven climate change, it's because I choose to believe the integrity of the scientific community and the scientific process. But only 55 years ago there was segregation in the US and news reports of racial inferiority would have been controversial while today they would be racist and "disputed". Times change and this is a tough problem to solve.
- mrdrozdov 10y ago
  The court.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Truth is the ultimate judge of truth -- world-views are tested against the world, and those which don't correspond, sufficiently, to reality, are shown wrong. It's an evolutionary process (in several deep senses). There is a philosophical discipline devoted to establishing Truth: epistemology. "Criteria of Truth" describe how people can, and do, make judgements on the truth of propositions, in the face of information which is incomplete, confusing, and out-of-date. Correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic theories are the strongest, though other fallbacks, including authority, tradition or custom, and majority opinion are used, despite the fact that they are unreliable. The ultimate keeper of truth isn't quite the right question, but in general, those who are trusted with distinguishing truths are those who have shown the capacity, ability, and integrity to serve in that role. That is: who judges truth? Someone who is very good at doing just that. Authorities aren't absolute, they're not perfect, and they're not immune to bias or corruption. But, over time, they should show themselves to be sincere in their efforts to uncover the truth, inclusive of admitting their errors and changing their judgements in the face of new evidence. The problem is a complex one, but not a greenfield.
  - RileyKyeden 10y ago
    This is why I consider places like Politifact/Factcheck useful. I don't always agree with their assessment, but they detail their reasoning and are generally fair. I can follow the logic, figure out where we diverge, and form my own opinion. It's the same with SCOTUS rulings. They give a detailed account of their reasoning. Even conservative justices who I think routinely use backwards reasoning to make idiotic decisions at least tend to follow a logic absent in rulings from their conservative peers in lower courts (who tend more toward non-reasoning like "gay is bad" and "why do you hate capitalism"). I can at least follow a bizarre logic and understand how they came to the decision because there is a logic, even if the logic comes from a mindset that conflicts with my own.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Politifact / Factcheck are useful. But they're not the end of the story. Getting the answer to the question right isn't particularly useful if the question itself is wrong.
mod 10y ago
Even beyond that, there are plenty of people who just don't trust anything. I had a guy refuse to believe the Library of Congress in a citation. I expect so many stories will be flagged that we'll all just ignore the "disputed" flag.
aaron-lebo 10y ago
I genuinely believe Facebook is a threat to society at this point. It's a website which is designed with decades of psychology in mind specifically to trigger animal-like instincts of immediacy and self-gratification with no real purpose other than to raise Facebook's market value. It helps us stay connected sure (though it feels more like some kind of serfdom where you have to keep a Facebook account), but it also encourages narcissism, envy, and echo chambers. Don't like an opinion (or fact)? Scream, block, or dispute it and get that person out of your life so you've got a nice curated feed which fits all your preconceptions. What has its ecosystem created which is of lasting value? I've never trusted Facebook from an ethical standpoint but as they exist longer, its hard to trust them from a social engineering standpoint either. They have more data available to them than anyone save god, better machine learning capabilities and stats than anyone else, and it takes them until after the election to recognize fake news is a problem? Of course, conveniently, the result of the election didn't fit Zuckerberg's political views. You can get downvoted on HN for stating an opinion or fact that someone doesn't like for whatever reason. Some people are very spiteful. This is the solution?
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Since this appears HN-unpopular, I just want to agree wholeheartedly with the points made here. Though FB is only part of a broader media problem.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Clarifying: I'm not agreeing because the point's unpopular, but rather, am publicly stating my agreement despite the status. My original wording bothers me.
mrdrozdov 10y ago
Wouldn't this logic apply to their previous reporting feature?

ythn 10y ago

So who gets to be the ultimate keeper of truth? If CNN spins a story to be police brutality, but you happen to be an eyewitness who saw that it was actually self-defense, can you mark the CNN story as disputed? Who decides if you are right or wrong?

deegles 10y ago
Unbiased algorithms. /s
harshreality 10y ago
If the race of the victim isn't Caucasian, it's obviously police brutality because of the power and authority disparity between police as an institution and people of the victim's race. I'm not even joking. That's an accepted (approximate) SJW definition. It makes perfect sense if you accept that SJW definition, where violence and brutality and racism depend more on relative social power of the primary social groups of the involved persons, rather than facts relating to the incident in question. When you start drinking that kool-aid, it's a small step to believe that the mere existence of police vis-à-vis historically disadvantaged minority groups is violence, abuse, and brutality. An incident isn't even required. When there is an incident, it's merely a manifestation of the underlying police discrimination, violence and brutality inherent in the system.
- nodesocket 10y ago
  > If the race of the victim isn't Caucasian, it's obviously police brutality because of the power and authority disparity between police as an institution and people of the victim's race. I can't tell what you are tying to say here. I hope you are not saying if the person is not white then by default it's police brutality.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    harshreality is saying that's what "SJWs" believe.
    - nodesocket 10y ago
      Ok, sorry harshreality, my bad. I agree with him that SJW (social justice warriors) are incredibly hypocritical and disconnected. They operate in herd mentality standing on their soapbox of equality, fairness, and collective good. If you don't agree with SJW, then you are a racist, sexist, xenophobe.
roymurdock 10y ago
News stories that are reported as fake by people on Facebook may be reviewed by independent third-party fact-checkers. These fact-checkers will be signatories of the non-partisan Poynter Code of Principles. A story may be marked as disputed if these fact-checkers find the story to be fake.
empath75 10y ago
To me, I think the veracity of individual stories aren't as important as the process of reporting and managing the life cycle of the story. Are sources being double checked, did they attempt to contact the subject of the story for comments, do they have a process for reviewing bad stories and issuing retractions? That's really the difference between The NY Times and some random Macedonian blogger. It's possible with all of that that the times can be wrong and somebody blogging from their moms basement can have the story right, but in the long run, you're better off getting your news from an organization that follows journalistic best practices.
everdev 10y ago
+1. In the end we all have to trust someone. Even Kyrie Irving thinks the world is flat because he chooses not to trust scientists or look out the window of an airplane. While I believe in human-driven climate change, it's because I choose to believe the integrity of the scientific community and the scientific process. But only 55 years ago there was segregation in the US and news reports of racial inferiority would have been controversial while today they would be racist and "disputed". Times change and this is a tough problem to solve.
mrdrozdov 10y ago
The court.
dredmorbius 10y ago
Truth is the ultimate judge of truth -- world-views are tested against the world, and those which don't correspond, sufficiently, to reality, are shown wrong. It's an evolutionary process (in several deep senses). There is a philosophical discipline devoted to establishing Truth: epistemology. "Criteria of Truth" describe how people can, and do, make judgements on the truth of propositions, in the face of information which is incomplete, confusing, and out-of-date. Correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic theories are the strongest, though other fallbacks, including authority, tradition or custom, and majority opinion are used, despite the fact that they are unreliable. The ultimate keeper of truth isn't quite the right question, but in general, those who are trusted with distinguishing truths are those who have shown the capacity, ability, and integrity to serve in that role. That is: who judges truth? Someone who is very good at doing just that. Authorities aren't absolute, they're not perfect, and they're not immune to bias or corruption. But, over time, they should show themselves to be sincere in their efforts to uncover the truth, inclusive of admitting their errors and changing their judgements in the face of new evidence. The problem is a complex one, but not a greenfield.
- RileyKyeden 10y ago
  This is why I consider places like Politifact/Factcheck useful. I don't always agree with their assessment, but they detail their reasoning and are generally fair. I can follow the logic, figure out where we diverge, and form my own opinion. It's the same with SCOTUS rulings. They give a detailed account of their reasoning. Even conservative justices who I think routinely use backwards reasoning to make idiotic decisions at least tend to follow a logic absent in rulings from their conservative peers in lower courts (who tend more toward non-reasoning like "gay is bad" and "why do you hate capitalism"). I can at least follow a bizarre logic and understand how they came to the decision because there is a logic, even if the logic comes from a mindset that conflicts with my own.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Politifact / Factcheck are useful. But they're not the end of the story. Getting the answer to the question right isn't particularly useful if the question itself is wrong.

mod 10y ago

Even beyond that, there are plenty of people who just don't trust anything. I had a guy refuse to believe the Library of Congress in a citation. I expect so many stories will be flagged that we'll all just ignore the "disputed" flag.

aaron-lebo 10y ago

I genuinely believe Facebook is a threat to society at this point. It's a website which is designed with decades of psychology in mind specifically to trigger animal-like instincts of immediacy and self-gratification with no real purpose other than to raise Facebook's market value. It helps us stay connected sure (though it feels more like some kind of serfdom where you have to keep a Facebook account), but it also encourages narcissism, envy, and echo chambers. Don't like an opinion (or fact)? Scream, block, or dispute it and get that person out of your life so you've got a nice curated feed which fits all your preconceptions. What has its ecosystem created which is of lasting value? I've never trusted Facebook from an ethical standpoint but as they exist longer, its hard to trust them from a social engineering standpoint either. They have more data available to them than anyone save god, better machine learning capabilities and stats than anyone else, and it takes them until after the election to recognize fake news is a problem? Of course, conveniently, the result of the election didn't fit Zuckerberg's political views. You can get downvoted on HN for stating an opinion or fact that someone doesn't like for whatever reason. Some people are very spiteful. This is the solution?

dredmorbius 10y ago
Since this appears HN-unpopular, I just want to agree wholeheartedly with the points made here. Though FB is only part of a broader media problem.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Clarifying: I'm not agreeing because the point's unpopular, but rather, am publicly stating my agreement despite the status. My original wording bothers me.

mrdrozdov 10y ago

Wouldn't this logic apply to their previous reporting feature?