4 ms·
>I wonder how far they are willing to go with this. It's reducing assertions to single sentences. Calling it fact-checking is also deceptive. That phrase is a
by FLUX-YOU 9y ago
>I wonder how far they are willing to go with this.
It's reducing assertions to single sentences. Calling it fact-checking is also deceptive. That phrase is a tool of the media to get viewers to stop looking at counter-arguments and to take the pundit's side. It's another 'headline' and for sure, will have click-bait content from news companies.
It would be different if it showed the assertions and then linked to rebuttals (and then linking rebuttals to rebuttals -- like debate, you have a limited number of "rounds" constrained by the amount of space Google will allow you). However, dropping a bool is going too far. That's implying the matter is settled, and for politics, it isn't likely to be settled. For sure, it needs "mostly true/false" and "partially true/false".
- noway421 9y agoAgree with you. It actually not boolean though: -1 = "Hard to categorize" 1 = "False" 2 = "Mostly false" 3 = "Half true" 4 = "Mostly true" 5 = "True" What it doesn't have though is "debatable" or "unknown". As if we always have perfect information. "Hard to categorize" one fits more for unintelligible questions which don't make sense at all. I guess google could assign "debatable" if for the same claim different sources assign different truth. But that's pretty wack too, because a single source can't concede that a question is debatable and is forced to pick a side.
- detaro 9y agoI had interpreted the "hard to categorize" as "hard to put in any of the other categories", which could also mean "unknown" or "conflicting information".