4 ms·

The thing about "fake news" is that nobody can agree on an objective definition of what it is. So people just train their models on controversial pages and hope

The thing about "fake news" is that nobody can agree on an objective definition of what it is. So people just train their models on controversial pages and hope for the best.

1001101 9y ago
There's a taxonomy. As far as I can see there is: * Propaganda/Information Warfare (motive: advance foreign policy goals) * Clickbait (motive: $) * Stories that portray our executive leadership in unflattering terms (motive: journalism, reportage) I'm sure there are others, including perhaps whatever classification is targeting 'voices on the margin.' Hearkening back to "When Wikileaks met Google," this seems like a feature, and not a bug to me.
Ygg2 9y ago
"Fake news" is such a non descript term, it's essentially double speak (i.e. it means whatever I disagree with). I mean, was WMD in Iraq Fake news? The point is, press lost all credibility a long time ago, so now we can apply this label far and wide.
- colechristensen 9y ago
  No, the producers of fake news are defending themselves by using doublespeak to dilute the accusation.
colechristensen 9y ago
I keep having this argument about the dictionary. Just because enough people use a term incorrectly doesn't make the term adopt new meaning. Language does shift and that should be respected, but if you take it too far (which many do) nothing means anything any more. To the point, the people calling truth they don't like "fake news" aren't adding a definition to the term. They're just lying. Fake news is news which is objectively faked. Definitions of "news" shouldn't be controversial, and neither should definitions of "fake". Fake news are objects which try to pass themselves as news but substantially misrepresent the truth through malice or gross ignorance. Or more softly, Fake News is anything like an Onion article except not (almost) everyone is in on the joke. (and maybe the joke isn't so much a joke as a lie)

The thing about "fake news" is that nobody can agree on an objective definition of what it is. So people just train their models on controversial pages and hope for the best.

1001101 9y ago

There's a taxonomy. As far as I can see there is: * Propaganda/Information Warfare (motive: advance foreign policy goals) * Clickbait (motive: $) * Stories that portray our executive leadership in unflattering terms (motive: journalism, reportage) I'm sure there are others, including perhaps whatever classification is targeting 'voices on the margin.' Hearkening back to "When Wikileaks met Google," this seems like a feature, and not a bug to me.

Ygg2 9y ago

"Fake news" is such a non descript term, it's essentially double speak (i.e. it means whatever I disagree with). I mean, was WMD in Iraq Fake news? The point is, press lost all credibility a long time ago, so now we can apply this label far and wide.

colechristensen 9y ago
No, the producers of fake news are defending themselves by using doublespeak to dilute the accusation.

colechristensen 9y ago

I keep having this argument about the dictionary. Just because enough people use a term incorrectly doesn't make the term adopt new meaning. Language does shift and that should be respected, but if you take it too far (which many do) nothing means anything any more. To the point, the people calling truth they don't like "fake news" aren't adding a definition to the term. They're just lying. Fake news is news which is objectively faked. Definitions of "news" shouldn't be controversial, and neither should definitions of "fake". Fake news are objects which try to pass themselves as news but substantially misrepresent the truth through malice or gross ignorance. Or more softly, Fake News is anything like an Onion article except not (almost) everyone is in on the joke. (and maybe the joke isn't so much a joke as a lie)