17 ms·
Fact Check now available in Google Search and News
- isaac_is_goat 10y agoSnopes and Politifact? Really? smh
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- provost 10y agoI want to think about this both optimistically and pessimistically. It's a great start and hope it leads to improvement, but this has the same psychological effect as reading a click-bait headline (fake news in itself) -- unless readers dive deeper. And just as with Wikipedia, the "fact check" sites could be gamed or contain inaccurate information themselves. Users never ask about the 'primary sources', and instead justread the headline for face-value. My pessimistic expectation is that this inevitably will result in something like: Chocolate is good for you. - Fact Check: Mostly True Chocolate is bad for you. - Fact Check: Mostly True Edit: Words
- greglindahl 10y agoNutritional advice is rarely supported by strong science, so "mostly true" for both headlines is easily possible, given the weak evidence for each statement.
- provost 10y agoThat's my point... the things to be "fact checked" will often have weak evidence, especially for the first few days/weeks.
- squeaky-clean 10y agoPeople are totally going to game this just like they game SEO. No doubt about it. Oh god, I hope "Fact Check Optimizer" doesn't become a real profession.
- sweetishfish 10y agoWho fact checks the fact checkers?
- castis 10y agoI would imagine that you; the reader, does. If you find something incorrect, you should tell them or make an attempt to do so. Having said that, I'm skeptical that this will be a force for overall good. I can already imagine ways in which this will be abused.
- MrZongle2 10y ago"If you find something incorrect, you should tell them or make an attempt to do so." This seems like the common-sense approach, but who knows how long a proper "review" would take place and how much damage would be done (e.g. thousands or millions being improperly informed by a supposedly reliable service) in the meantime. I am also highly skeptical of this effort, which essentially amounts to Google and a few parties trying to automate critical thinking skills.
- Karunamon 10y agoYeah.. it doesn't work that way at all. The lie is usually bombastic and bite-sized, the debunking subdued and thorough. Result: Most people won't even see the debunking. Churchill had a great quote here: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
- MegaButts 10y ago> I would imagine that you; the reader, does. If you find something incorrect, you should tell them or make an attempt to do so. Although certainly not perfect, I'd say Wikipedia does an excellent job doing just this. And at the beginning, everybody said something like Wikipedia would be impossible.
- justinzollars 10y ago
- forgotpwtomain 10y agoThis is a bad slippery slope - it suggests that a 'little sponsored banner' (which google chooses) can waive the necessity of being diligent in thought.
- Florin_Andrei 10y agoNo. This does not replace anything. It's just one tool in a big war chest against bullshit. Fact checking is one tool. Good thinking is another. The list is big and we need every single one of those things to stave off this pandemic.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago> Fact checking is one tool. Good thinking is another. The list is big and we need every single one of those things to stave off this pandemic. Which pandemic are you referring to exactly? Fake news, deceptive reporting, gossip, libel, propaganda has existed pretty much as long as authority has existed. Now recently Trump became president and there is a national pandemic and no doubt we should place our trust in certain institutions to help combat this disease. If this isn't Orwelesque I don't know what is...
- dragonwriter 10y agoOriginal title is "Fact Check now in Google Search and News"; the different capitalization vs the current HN headline ("Fact Check Now...") is significant, the new feature "Fact Check" is now available in Google Search and News, rather than a feature "Fact Check Now" being discussed in those services.
- civilian 10y agoSo I mean, this is just a metadata tag. Anyone can make one. I'm looking forward to Breitbart & HuffPo abusing this... I think it would be interesting to collect a list of websites that disagree on a claim review.
- debt 10y agothis is just gonna create a pavlovian response akin to "ah okay this is fact-checked i'll read" which'll just compound the problem. it presumes that google's fact-checking algorithms and methodology are sound.
- ksk 10y agoAre we in the twilight zone? An advertising company fact checking political discourse? Would google apply the same fact check to their own company? "Does Google dodge taxes"
- drdrey 10y agoI don't see the fact check widget, but the first search result for your suggested query is a Forbes story with the headline "Google Moved Billions Of Dollars To Bermuda To Avoid Taxes... Again"
- ksk 10y agoThis is what I get for another similar query.. http://imgur.com/a/iy2cK http://imgur.com/a/iy2cK
- oldgun 10y agoBesides political debates, anyone else thinks this 'ClaimReview' schema put to use by Google is one step towards the application of Semantic Web? There might be something more than just a 'new app by Google' here.
- ronjouch 10y ago> https://blog.google/products/search/fact-check-now-available-google-search-and-news-around-world/ https://blog.google/products/search/fact-check-now-available... Didn't know Google has its own top-level domain oÔ. Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12609551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12609551
- huula 10y agoGoodgirl!
- pawn 10y agoI think this has huge potential for abuse. Let's say politifact or snopes or both happen to be biased. Let's say they both lean left or both lean right. Now an entire side of the aisle will always be presented by Google as false. I know that's how most people perceive it anyway, but how's it going to look for Google when they're taking a side? Also, I have to wonder whether this will flag things as false until one of those other sites confirms it, or does it default to neutral?
- lallysingh 10y agoThese are objective fact checks, aren't they? It's harder to quietly include bias than in say, a newspaper or cable news. If one/both of them starts getting power-mad with their influence, they can get booted off the list, and replaced, or have others come in next to them. If two of them say "This is true", and a third says "This is false", then that third one, if it can present good data for it's POV, can quickly become more trusted.
- Jach 10y agoEven if it were all objective fact reporting, related facts can be left out that change the picture. Imagine someone reporting that some new supplement is correlated with a 500% increase in some specific deadly disease, and that whatever study that produced that number is bulletproof. Sounds risky! But the disease's base rate, not reported, is only 10^-6, so 500% over that really isn't that much. Another fun one is if certain facts about overall dimensions of the data are reported but not about the individual dimensions themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox Basically my point is even if we suppose these are objective facts, that's not enough to rule out bias determining which facts are used.
- ng12 10y agoThe problem with objective fact checks: https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/785299709342654465?lang=en https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/785299709342654465?lang=e...
- 10y ago
- ffef 10y agoA great start in the right direction and a kudos for using Schema to help battle "'fake news'"
- MrZongle2 10y agoSo what takes place when the inevitable happens, and an employee decides that an existing "fact check" (conducted by a third party, Google hastens to add) is philosophically inconvenient and thus removes it? Also, FTA: "Only publishers that are algorithmically determined to be an authoritative source of information will qualify for inclusion." What's the algorithm? Who wrote it?
- snowpanda 10y agoThis happens already, especially with politifact and snopes, glad I'm not the only one on HN who sees it.
- codydh 10y agoI tried a slew of recent statements that are objectively false but that a certain politician in the United States has tried to say are true. Google returned fact checks for exactly 0 of the queries I tried.
- civilian 10y agoSo I mean, this is just google supporting a new kind of metadata on pages. They aren't validating anything.
- snowpanda 10y agoSnopes and Politifact, they can't be serious. Not that I expected them to pick a neutral source, nor am I surprised that Silicon Valley's Google picked 2 leftist "fact" sources. This is a stupid idea, everyone has a bias. This isn't to help people, this is to influence how people see things.
- keebEz 10y agoA fact has no truth value. Truth only comes from reason, and reason only exists in each person's head. This is reducing the demand for reason, and thus destroying truth.
- pierrepoutine 10y agoFive Pinocchios ("pants on fire"!)
- ArchReaper 10y agoAnyone have an alt link? 'blog.google' does not resolve for me.
- RandomInteger4 10y agoI'm curious; why would that be? Are you using an old version of Safari?
- cbhl 10y agoIs it an option for you to use Google Public DNS so that you can resolve the new .google gTLD? https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/ https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/
- jawns 10y agoI'm a former journalist, and one of the mistakes I often see people make is to either give too much or not enough credence to whether the facts in a news story (or op-ed) are true. Obviously, if you disregard objective facts because they defy your assumptions or hurt your argument, you're deluding yourself. But an argument that uses objectively true and verifiable facts may nevertheless be invalid (i.e. it's possible that the premises might be true but the conclusion false). Similarly, a news story might be entirely factual but still biased. And in software terms, your unit tests might be fine, but your integration tests still fail. So here's what I tell people: Fact checking is like spell check. You know what's great about spell check? It can tell me that I've misspeled two words in this sentance. But it will knot alert me too homophones. And even if my spell checker also checks grammar, I might construct a sentence that is entirely grammatical but lets the bathtub build my dark tonsils rapidly, and it will appear error-free. Similarly, you can write an article in which all of the factual assertions are true but irrelevant to the point at hand. Or you can write an article in which the facts are true, but they're cherry-picked to support a particular bias. And some assertions are particularly hard to fact-check because even the means of verifying them is disputed. So while fact checking can be useful, it can also be misused, and we need to keep in mind its limitations. In the end, what will serve you best is not some fact checking website, but the ability to read critically, think critically, factor in potential bias, and scrutinize the tickled wombat's postage.
- sebow 10y ago>objective facts alright...
- dboyd 10y agoMy favourite one that I use as a cliche from time-to-time is... > The average European lifespan has more than doubled since Sir Walter Raleigh introduced tobacco to the continent.
- smsm42 10y agoThis is a good one, also probably because by "lifespan" it means life expectancy at birth, as many "statistics" do, which has pretty much nothing to do with anything that happens to people after 15 or so.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- khana 10y agoThe beginning of the end.
- artursapek 10y agoI see Google having good intentions here, but I fall back to my previous sentiment on trying to assign "true/false" for all political stories and discussions. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13793576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13793576
- endymi0n 10y agoThe problems aren't facts. The problems are what completely distorted pictures of reality you can implicitly paint with completely solid and true facts. If 45 states that "the National Debt in my first month went down by $12 billion vs a $200 billion increase in Obama first mo." that's absolutely and objectively true - except that Obama inherited the financial meltdown of the Bush era and Trump years of hard financial consolidation (while any legislation has a lag of at least a year to trickle down into any kind of reporting at government scale). Fact-checking won't change a thing about spin-doctoring. At least not in the positive sense.
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago> Fact-checking won't change a thing about spin-doctoring. That's like saying padlocks won't change a thing about burglaries. Of course padlocks cannot prevent burglaries 100%. But the salient point here is to make the burglary harder, to raise the entry level to where the frequency of the undesirable event decreases markedly. And of course you should not rely exclusively on padlocks - you also need cops, alarm systems, etc. Same with fact checking. It's become very trivial to spew bullshit on the Internet, it's as easy as email spam in the past decade. We need to make it more expensive to conduct such activities, ideally orders of magnitude more expensive.
- Banthum 10y agoOne great example of this from the New York Times: 'Last year, 35% of colleges saw international student numbers go up, 26% saw no change, and 39% saw them go down. New York Times publishes this with the headline “Amid Trump Effect Fear, 40% of Colleges See Dip in Foreign Applicants”.' Source: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/03/one-real-blooper-cannot-let-pass.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/03/one... And another similar one from the NYT: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/30/contra-nyt-on-economists-on-education/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/30/contra-nyt-on-economis...
- marknutter 10y agoReally fake news. Sad!!
- orangepenguin 10y agoThere is obviously a lot of debate on whether or not fact checking is accurate and useful. I think simply presenting a fact check will help people think more critically about headlines they see every day. Like "Mythbusters Science". It's not perfect, but it helps people to think. Relevant: https://xkcd.com/397/ https://xkcd.com/397/
- scottmsul 10y agoA better idea would be to look for disagreements. Given a news article or claim, are there any sources out there which disagree? Then the user could browse both claims and decide for himself.
- Florin_Andrei 10y agoPolitical news these days, there is strong disagreement on every single goddamn thing.
- twinkletwinkle 10y agoCounterargument to that is the whole "teach the controversy" dispute. Evolution is the only scientifically accepted theory, there are sources which disagree but placing eg Intelligent Design on the same level as Evolution is disingenuous.
- DanBC 10y agoI'd be interested to see how it copes with UK newspapers. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6GuXQhWUAAN5F5.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6GuXQhWUAAN5F5.jpg PROOF STATINS SAVE MILLIONS STATINS IN NEW HEALTH ALERT STATINS REALLY DO SAVE YOUR LIFE HEALTH CHIEF SLAMS STATINS HIGH DOSE OF STATINS CAN BEAT DEMENTIA DOCTORS BAN ON STATINS TAKE STATINS TO SAVE YOUR LIFE NEW STATINS BOMBSHELL OFFICIAL: STATINS ARE SAFE STATINS: NEW SAFETY CHECKS PROOF STATINS BEAT DEMENTIA HOW STATINS CAN CAUSE DIABETES STATINS FIGHT CANCER STATINS SLASH RISK OF STROKE BY 30% STATINS INCREASE RISK OF DIABETES STATINS ADD A MERE 3 DAYS TO LIFE STATINS DOUBLE RISK OF DIABETES STATINS AGE YOU FASTER NEW STATINS SAFETY ALERT STATINS LINKED TO 227 DEATHS PROOF AT LAST STATINS ARE SAFE
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- allemagne 10y agoI think that politifact, snopes, and most fact-checking websites I'm aware of are great and everyone should use them as sources of reason and skepticism in a larger sea of information and misinformation. But they are not authorities on the truth. Google is not qualified to decide who is an authoritative decider of truth. But as the de facto gateway to the internet, it really looks like they are now doing exactly that. I am deeply uncomfortable with this.
- marknutter 10y ago> But they are not authorities on the truth. I actually find them to be quite a bit more dangerous than normal news publications precisely because they claim to have some higher standard for truth. When truth comes down to a score card, you can inject less spin and bias into the article than you would otherwise have to because so long as your readers see that something was at least "mostly true" or "mostly false" they will consider the case closed because it says "fact" right in the name of the publication.
- savanaly 10y agoDo you think that a) it's possible, hypothetically, for an organization to exist that holds itself to a consistently higher standard of truthful reporting, both in basic facts in in how they report it b) if yes to a), it's practical to make an organization like that c) if yes to a) and b), should the organization attempt to advertise itself as being "more truthful" than other places that don't do that, such as by putting "fact" in their name?
- pcmonk 10y agoWhat I wish they would do is use their fancy AI to put in a link to the original source. Tracking down original sources is extremely tedious, but it generally gives you the clearest idea of what's actually going on.
- Neliquat 10y agoSo much this. The sources, while often not any more factual, give you a better context for the given informaton.
- tabeth 10y agoFact checking is irrelevant. What's necessary is education. Just like spell check will not allow you to magically compose elegant prose, fact check is not going to prevent people from being misled. Notice how both of these "problems" have the same solution. In fact, fact check can be counter productive as people now sprinkle their articles with irrelevant facts. Education is the solution to all social problems.
- plainOldText 10y agoEducation, as well us cognitive augmentation. Our brains are incapable of keeping up with the influx of information we're interacting with on a regular basis. We need to develop systems capable of information processing tailored to ones individual needs, intimately connected to our intellects.
- sergiotapia 10y agoSnopes and Politifact are not fact-checking websites. >Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else. >While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship. She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. --- I think fact checking should be non-partisan, don't you?
- savanaly 10y agoWhen you want to debunk a shyster claiming he has supernatural abilities (pyschics, etc), who is the first person you should turn to? A magician. By that same logic, perhaps former spin doctors make the best fact checkers.
- ahyattdev 10y agoThe problem is whether or not they are "former" spin doctors. One could continue their "spinning" with even more power when being put in charge of labeling media true or not.
- takeda 10y agoAs long as there are references which one can independently verify, I don't see a problem with that.
- rndmize 10y agoIt would be nice if you would cite your sources. (http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websi...) Your quotes look like little more than personal attacks, and a glance through Lacapria's list of articles on Snopes reveals plenty of debunking from both sides of the isle. http://www.snopes.com/author/kim/ http://www.snopes.com/author/kim/ Further, the articles seem clearly written, well cited, and as factual as I would reasonably expect. Unfortunately, the same does not apply to the author who wrote the article attacking her. Not that the Daily Caller looks much like a high-quality source to begin with ("conservative HuffPo" doesn't inspire confidence), but the author seems to toe the standard conservative conspiracy lines (Soros, etc.), with an fair amount of misrepresentation in his attack article. If I had some hours I'd look through his articles to see what I could find as far as accuracy, but as it stands, I'm going to go off the headlines and say Snopes probably checked some of his articles, found them wanting, and he took offense. http://dailycaller.com/author/peterhasson/ http://dailycaller.com/author/peterhasson/
- balozi 10y agoOne likely outcome from this is that Google Search and News will be now be perceived as partisan by the Hoi polloi. Same reason why the old media gatekeeper fell by the wayside.
- takeda 10y agoI know a person who eats those "alternative facts" like candy. When I tried to prove one of them wrong, I pulled out a website to do a fact check and his response was: "you trust Snopes?" so I have doubts this will help much, but I would like to be wrong.
- throwaway71958 10y agoThis is incomplete: they need to also include the political affiliations of owners of "fact check" sites, and perhaps also FEC disclosure for donations above threshold, and sources of financial support. I.e. this site comes from PolitiFact, but its owner is a liberal and he took a bunch of money from Pierre Omidyar who also donated heavily to the Clinton Global Initiative. Puts the fact checks in a more "factual" light, IMO. Fact check on the fact check: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/14/new-grant-will-help-politifact-grow/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/14/... Things have gotten hyper-partisan to the extreme in the past year or so, so you sometimes see things that are factually true rated as "mostly false" if they do not align with the narrative of the (typically liberal) owners.
- smsm42 10y agoReading the article, it looks like what is going on is that news publishers now can claim that their articles were fact checked, or certain article is a fact check article on another one, using special markup. They also say the fact checks should adhere to certain guidelines, but I don't see how it would be possible for them to enforce any of these guidelines. It looks like just self-labelling feature, with all abuse potential inherent in this.
- pklausler 10y agoI really wish that major legitimate institutions of journalism (i.e., the ones that require multiple independent sources, publish corrections and retractions, &c.) would just stop pussyfooting around with nice simple accurate words like "lies" when they're reporting on somebody who's blatantly lying. False equivalency and cowardice is going to get us all killed.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> I really wish that major legitimate institutions of journalism (i.e., the ones that require multiple independent sources, publish corrections and retractions, &c.) would just stop pussyfooting around with nice simple accurate words like "lies" when they're reporting on somebody who's blatantly lying. I'd prefer false statements be characterized as such rather than lies (which involves not just false statement but also a particular mental state by the one making the statement) by the media, unless there is overwhelming evidence that the statement is a knowing falsehood. Obviously, information that suggests that the originator knew, or reasonably should have known, the statement to be false should be presented as well, where available.
- exclusiv 10y agoAgreed. It's more disturbing that people seem so comfortable calling others liars without evidence. Or racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. I heard Chris Matthews push that yesterday - saying things like "maybe they're challenging her like they are because she's a woman... I don't know". If you don't know, don't suggest it.
- okreallywtf 10y agoI'm amazed at how much cynicism I'm seeing here about this. People just keep repeating what can be boiled down to the same premise: complete objective truth basically doesn't exist. Truth is messy, tricky, subjective business. This is not new, this is just how the world is. Truth and understanding is best-effort and always has been, so why is a tool to attempt to combat some of the most egregious falsehoods even remotely a bad thing? Nobody should claim that its bulletproof, but I'm not seeing anyone really do this? The problem is some of us never deal in absolutes, we see nuance in everything (climate science, economics, political science) but there are others who do deal in absolutes and make a killing doing so. Sitting around having the same debate over and over about facts and truth doesn't do anything to tackle the problem. My rule of thumb is that generally there is safety in numbers. Don't trust any single source and don't trust something that doesn't have a chain of reasoning behind it. I trust all kinds of scientific statements that I don't have the qualifications or time to vet myself - but we have to do our best and that often means doing a meta-analysis of how a conclusion was reached and how many other people/groups (who themselves have qualifications and links to other entities with similar qualifications) that the statements are linked to. Fake news isn't 100 levels deep, its usually 1 level with no real supporting information. When people (like Trump) categorically denounce someone elses statement they often provide no real information of their own. Similarly, when refuting a fact-check, most people don't dig into it and refute something in their chain of reasoning, they just say "well that is just not true!" and leave it at that. We don't need to fundamentally fix the nature of truth but we need to be able to combat the worst cases of misinformation and any tool that helps do that is great. Continuing the have the same philosophical debate about truth is fine from an academic standpoint but from a practical standpoint it is sometimes not helpful. I feel similarly about climate change - its great to acknowledge nuance but what good is that if we're trending towards pogroms and a totalitarian dictatorship (to be hyperbolic, maybe)?
- josefresco 10y agoWhat if I told you (cue the Morpheus meme), that people consuming the "fake news" don't care that it's fake? It's called confirmation bias and winning. Education isn't going to solve this issue, you can't forcibly educate people nor can you change their core "values" and their determination to be "right". The only "education" that I can envision working is quantifying the real-world-impact of their votes on the personal level. Ex: Your health insurance was cancelled? The representative you voted for caused that. This unfortunately is normally executed with a partisan goal, however should be applied as a public service to all Americans.
- thr0waway1239 10y agoFactual Unbiased Checks for Knowledge Upkeep by Google.
- losteverything 10y agoBilly Jack was rated M. This is just another new rating system. As long as they don't prevent me from reading false things, I can live with it. Keep it my choice.
- retox 10y agoI may be naive but I sincerely think this is the first step in a larger sequence of events. Next 'fake' articles/sources will get a lower ranking in searches, then they'll be replaced with a button "this result is fake news, click here to read anyway". The final step will be complete removal of sources all together. And what happens when Google is the subject of a hostile take over and those tools are in the hands of someone else? Slippery slope fallacy, you might cry but we'll see.
- losteverything 10y agoYour post made me think of the Google search as "pure" - yeah algorithms spat out stuff, but a keyword change here or there got different stuff. Now it isn't pure. We need a Pure search engine.
- pcl 10y agoThe blog title is "Fact Check now available in Google Search and News around the world". I think that the extra bit at the end is worthy of inclusion, as I expect this to become a point of contention over the years. I would not be surprised if different governments take issue with Google adding any sort of editorial commentary, even if it's algorithmically determined etc.
- coryfklein 10y agoPretty neat! Unfortunately doesn't help when searching for "obama wiretap trump tower". https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+wiretap+trump+tower https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+wiretap+trump+tower
- throw2016 10y ago'Fact checking' should be limited to blatantly false news items fabricated and posted for online ad clicks ie 'Obama to move to Canada to help Trudeau run country' or 'Trump applies for UK citizenship to free UK citizens from Brussels despots'. These should be relatively easy to identify and classify. There is a wide line between the fabrications above and news and journalism as we know it full of opinion, bias, agendas, propaganda and maybe some facts twisted to suit narrative. The latter takes human level ai to sift through and even then detecting bias, leanings or manipulation depends on one's background, world view, specialization, knowledge levels, understanding of how the media works and a well informed general big picture state of the world. This is impossible to classify for bias, falsehood or manipulation and will need readers to use their judgment. Trying to 'control' this is like trying to control news, favouring media aligned to your world view and discrediting those whose views you disagree with. It is for all purposes propaganda as we understand the term. Calling it fact checking is sophistry.
- Mithaldu 10y agoLike very often when google says "everywhere" they don't remotely mean everywhere and should instead be saying "in the usa". My country's edition of google news has no fact check at all.
- sova 10y agoHurrah for Google! Now if only Facebook and SocialNetworkGiants(tm) would follow suit!
- DrScump 10y agoIt's interesting timing that just today, for the first time in a couple of weeks, my Facebook feed has fake news clickbait ads again. Unless both Kevin Spacey and Burt Reynolds are, in fact, dead. Again.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- SJacPhoto 10y agoAnd Who controls the fact-check facts?
- return0 10y agoIt's a witch hunt. Science (rather, life sciences) has a similar problem. There are just enough (statistically significant) facts to push many agendas. Peer review weeds out some stuff, but that doesn't stop a lot of wrong conclusions being pushed to the public. Maybe a better solution is adversarial opinionated journalism, rather than this proposed fact-ism.
- xster 10y agoThe fact that this came from CFR/Hillary's State Department's Jigsaw is very troubling.
- narrowrail 10y agoWho will fact check the fact checkers? Well, perhaps these trusted sources should implement a system similar to Quora/StackExchange but for opposing arguments? Lots of comments call into question the biases of sites like Snopes/Politifact/etc. and allowing some sort of adversarial response would help claims about 'leftists wanting to control our minds.' Maybe it's just a widget at the bottom of a fact check post leading to a StackExchange'd subdomain. A wiki or subreddit could work as well. Anyone looking for a side project?
- gthtjtkt 10y agoSnopes and Politifact are abject failures. Nothing but glorified bloggers who have declared themselves the arbiters of truth. Even Rachel Maddow has called them out on numerous occasions, and she was rooting for the same candidate as them: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/politifact-fails-again-destroy-277552195924 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/politifact-fai...
- retox 10y agoI don't trust Google to tell me the sky is blue.
- Safety1stClyde 10y agoWhat does that statement mean?
- mark_l_watson 10y agoI don't like this, at all. People need to rely on their own reasoning skills and critical judgement and not let centralized authorities have a large effect on what people can read. I like systems to be decentralized and this seems to be the opposite.
- westurner 10y agoSo, publishers can voluntarily add https://schema.org/ClaimReview https://schema.org/ClaimReview markup as RDFa, JSON-LD, or Microdata.
- gokusaaaan 10y agowho fact checks the facts checkers?
- pdimitar 10y ago"There's only one truth and that is Google". Haha, no. Keep trying though. Plus, as journalists in this thread have said, you might stick to the facts 100% (which I doubt Google will resist the temptation to abuse in the future, but let's leave that aside for now), your conclusion or subliminal message at the end might be entirely untrue and misguided. Sorry, Google. You need wait the planet's collective IQ to drop by several tens still. It's not your time to dominate the news yet.