5 ms·

The algorithm for identifying fake news is actually pretty straight forward: if I disagree with it then it's fake news else it's just news

sanderjd 10y ago
Easier algorithm: organizations with a long record and reputations to uphold, and which issue retractions when their stories are found to be factually incorrect, are real news. (Even if they are imperfect and politically skewed.)
- aqsheehy 10y ago
  The hard part is the "when their stories are found to be factually incorrect". If you have that solved that then you don't need the rest. Otherwise you would just game the system by retracting posts irregularly.
  - hn_throwaway_99 10y ago
    > Otherwise you would just game the system by retracting posts irregularly. But that's the point. There seems to be a large number of people and organizations (including the US President) who are NEVER interested in issuing retractions or admitting fault - when something is pointed out as factually false, they just repeat the falsehood louder even when there is stuff like audio or video evidence that directly refutes it.
  - Larrikin 10y ago
    Believing that since nothing can be 100% true everything is completely false paralyzes society. The temperature that's reported by your thermometer may be off by a degree or so but if you take that to mean it can't be trusted at all you have no basis to trust anything. Sources should be critically evaluated constantly, but sources that are usually more off should be treated differently than sources that are usually more on.
  - sanderjd 10y ago
    You're right, but honestly even just "issues retractions or corrections ever" weeds out huge swaths of "news".
- ericdykstra 10y ago
  Is Al Jazeera real news? https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/847593365189173248 https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/847593365189173248
ajross 10y ago
The term got terribly misappropriated like that, which was probably unavoidable. But no, stop it. There is always going to be potential bias in reporting focus, there will always be arguments to be had over journalism. But junk like Pizzagate is just plain wrong, full stop. It's fake. Everyone should agree that it's fake. And yet in the social media world (Facebook was the big offender) links like this are just treated as "news" and presented to their users alongside other stuff. There is a gatekeeper role for these companies that used to be provided by the traditional media. And Facebook wasn't even trying. So we got Pizzagate.
- aqsheehy 10y ago
  Is the problem not then that they should have represented it as "things people are interested in right now" and not as news?
- olivermarks 10y ago
  The term 'fake news' took off at exactly the same time as 'pizzagate'. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=fake%20news,pizzagate https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=fake%20news,pizza... The rumors and allegations against the Podesta brothers, the various associated instagram accounts and all the other information you can find in various youtube exposés (example: https://youtu.be/beqdw19Uj6E https://youtu.be/beqdw19Uj6E) were quickly trashed and ridiculed. Ben Swann's career got destroyed. The concept of 'news', as torturously discussed in the Danah Boyd piece, is entirely dependent on what information is allowed to be discussed and in what context. Most news outlets are extremely biased for political and advertising demographic reasons. The internet has been a wonderful medium for allowing people to discover and explore, and the only 'fake news' I see is created by Outbrain, Taboola and other click bait insurgents into the news media.
- Sunset 10y ago
  >Pizzagate is just plain wrong Is it? Have you seen the "art" "photos" hanging around on the walls in that pizzeria? The owner is definitely some kind of messed up.
- rmc 10y ago
  And Facebook would track "viral", "engaging" content and promote it more to your friends. So a link to a website that looks like a newspaper with the headline "Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring" would be "liked" and shared lots and FB would promote it to many people.

sanderjd 10y ago

Easier algorithm: organizations with a long record and reputations to uphold, and which issue retractions when their stories are found to be factually incorrect, are real news. (Even if they are imperfect and politically skewed.)

aqsheehy 10y ago
The hard part is the "when their stories are found to be factually incorrect". If you have that solved that then you don't need the rest. Otherwise you would just game the system by retracting posts irregularly.
- hn_throwaway_99 10y ago
  > Otherwise you would just game the system by retracting posts irregularly. But that's the point. There seems to be a large number of people and organizations (including the US President) who are NEVER interested in issuing retractions or admitting fault - when something is pointed out as factually false, they just repeat the falsehood louder even when there is stuff like audio or video evidence that directly refutes it.
- Larrikin 10y ago
  Believing that since nothing can be 100% true everything is completely false paralyzes society. The temperature that's reported by your thermometer may be off by a degree or so but if you take that to mean it can't be trusted at all you have no basis to trust anything. Sources should be critically evaluated constantly, but sources that are usually more off should be treated differently than sources that are usually more on.
- sanderjd 10y ago
  You're right, but honestly even just "issues retractions or corrections ever" weeds out huge swaths of "news".
ericdykstra 10y ago
Is Al Jazeera real news? https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/847593365189173248 https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/847593365189173248

ajross 10y ago

The term got terribly misappropriated like that, which was probably unavoidable. But no, stop it. There is always going to be potential bias in reporting focus, there will always be arguments to be had over journalism. But junk like Pizzagate is just plain wrong, full stop. It's fake. Everyone should agree that it's fake. And yet in the social media world (Facebook was the big offender) links like this are just treated as "news" and presented to their users alongside other stuff. There is a gatekeeper role for these companies that used to be provided by the traditional media. And Facebook wasn't even trying. So we got Pizzagate.

aqsheehy 10y ago
Is the problem not then that they should have represented it as "things people are interested in right now" and not as news?
olivermarks 10y ago
The term 'fake news' took off at exactly the same time as 'pizzagate'. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=fake%20news,pizzagate https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=fake%20news,pizza... The rumors and allegations against the Podesta brothers, the various associated instagram accounts and all the other information you can find in various youtube exposés (example: https://youtu.be/beqdw19Uj6E https://youtu.be/beqdw19Uj6E) were quickly trashed and ridiculed. Ben Swann's career got destroyed. The concept of 'news', as torturously discussed in the Danah Boyd piece, is entirely dependent on what information is allowed to be discussed and in what context. Most news outlets are extremely biased for political and advertising demographic reasons. The internet has been a wonderful medium for allowing people to discover and explore, and the only 'fake news' I see is created by Outbrain, Taboola and other click bait insurgents into the news media.
Sunset 10y ago
>Pizzagate is just plain wrong Is it? Have you seen the "art" "photos" hanging around on the walls in that pizzeria? The owner is definitely some kind of messed up.
rmc 10y ago
And Facebook would track "viral", "engaging" content and promote it more to your friends. So a link to a website that looks like a newspaper with the headline "Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring" would be "liked" and shared lots and FB would promote it to many people.