3 ms·

> To make this statement is akin to saying that the opinion of experts is useless. That's not at all what I'm saying - absolutely, look at the opinions of expe

> To make this statement is akin to saying that the opinion of experts is useless. That's not at all what I'm saying - absolutely, look at the opinions of experts, just don't expect a news service to present all the ideal experts to you in one place. Go out and seek those experts on your own and verify who you think is credible and where their existing biases are.

pwinnski 9y ago
And how do you determine who are the experts? There are many trolls actively seeking to represent themselves as such, some more credibly than others. Once you push past those--if you can, since they grow like Topsy--then you get the actual experts with their own biases. This very quickly becomes more than a full-time job, much more even than a single full-time person can handle. Asking every person interested in world events to spend more than eight hours a day determining the veracity of everything they read, well, it's not a reasonably proposition.
- rightos 9y ago
  It's really not that hard to Google something and find reputable sources. Established names, links to well-known institutions, past history, etc. If you expect some single organization or worse, crappy AI to put together the perfect list of experts for you, I'd be deeply concerned about your susceptibility to this kind of thing in general.
  - pavel_lishin 9y ago
    > It's really not that hard to Google something and find reputable sources You simply cannot take this position in the comments section about a story in which Google very, very specifically fails quite badly to represent factual information.
    - rightos 9y ago
      This article is about their news aggregator failing to represent a fact check correctly, not about their search engine failing to deliver a wide variety of sources with various levels of reputability. Which it does do quite reliably. Their fact checking AI on the other hand... not so reliable clearly.

pwinnski 9y ago

And how do you determine who are the experts? There are many trolls actively seeking to represent themselves as such, some more credibly than others. Once you push past those--if you can, since they grow like Topsy--then you get the actual experts with their own biases. This very quickly becomes more than a full-time job, much more even than a single full-time person can handle. Asking every person interested in world events to spend more than eight hours a day determining the veracity of everything they read, well, it's not a reasonably proposition.

rightos 9y ago
It's really not that hard to Google something and find reputable sources. Established names, links to well-known institutions, past history, etc. If you expect some single organization or worse, crappy AI to put together the perfect list of experts for you, I'd be deeply concerned about your susceptibility to this kind of thing in general.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  > It's really not that hard to Google something and find reputable sources You simply cannot take this position in the comments section about a story in which Google very, very specifically fails quite badly to represent factual information.
  - rightos 9y ago
    This article is about their news aggregator failing to represent a fact check correctly, not about their search engine failing to deliver a wide variety of sources with various levels of reputability. Which it does do quite reliably. Their fact checking AI on the other hand... not so reliable clearly.