3 ms·
He's not talking about the process of fact checking, like you are. OP was using the analogy to say fact checking is not enough. Here it is slightly different:
by jnordwick 10y ago
He's not talking about the process of fact checking, like you are. OP was using the analogy to say fact checking is not enough.
Here it is slightly different: just because you spell check a sentence doesn't mean it is grammatically correct. Just like: just because you fact check a document doesn't mean it is without bias.
Both are necessary but not sufficient conditions.
- zeteo 10y agoRemember, we're talking about Google introducing fact checking. In this context, "fact checking is not enough" is a very different position from "fact checking is subjective".
- alpha_squared 10y agoFact checking isn't subjective, though. You either do fact-checking or you don't. If you do fact-checking, you're either checking if the statement is factually correct or not. There is no real in-between and no real "this is true because I think it is." At least from a human perspective. You're right in raising the concern that from a machine perspective this is hard to achieve, but again that's a red herring to the OP.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jnordwick 10y ago> Remember, we're talking about Google introducing fact checking Exactly. And he is saying that even if Google's fact checking works, it still doesn't equate to the piece begin unbiased or truth, Even more simply said again: You can lie with the true.