5 ms·

And who determines what's fact and fiction? Is it the news agency? So they just have to say "We 100% believe aliens live on the dark side of the moon" and it g

And who determines what's fact and fiction? Is it the news agency? So they just have to say "We 100% believe aliens live on the dark side of the moon" and it gets counted as fact? Or is it the government? And anything the government doesn't like is fake news.. and everything they do like is fact? I think this is much more difficult than you're assuming. Impossible really.

sova 9y ago
Independent fact checking firms exist, I don't think it is a stretch to distill their info into an easily comprehended badge icon. Google, according to their Counsel, is already giving anti terror groups flagging software.
- goialoq 9y ago
  Which independent fact-checking firms do you trust?
  - sova 9y ago
    Currently just Snopes
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  So you propose Tampa Bay Times Politifact, and The Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org become arbiters of truth? Have you actually read many of their articles? A lot of it depends on judgement calls of the person doing the fact checking. Leeway is given or taken by the fact checker.. and that amount varies by who is doing the checking. (And you can’t eliminate this because human language is so flexible that it will always require a judgement call to be made in all but the most blatant lies.) There are plenty of examples.. here's one: Politifact rates this as mostly true: Bernie Sanders says 'real unemployment' rate for African American youth is 51 percent http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/... Politifact rates this as mostly false: Trump misleadingly puts black youth unemployment rate at 59 percent http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/ http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/do... The rate is nowhere near that high according to the BLS: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm If politifact can't call out Bernie's 51%, like they did for Trump.. why would they get this trusted position you seem to think they are qualified for? Politifact is run by human beings. Their judgement shouldn't be substituted for the judgement of others. You can't outsource critical thinking.
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    +100 One was "accurate but need clarification"; the other "exaggerating and misleading". > Sanders said that for African-Americans between the ages of 17 and 20, "the real unemployment rate … is 51 percent." His terminology was off, but the numbers he used check out, and his general point was correct -- that in an apples-to-apples comparison, African-American youth have significantly worse prospects in the job market than either Hispanics or whites do. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. > Trump says the unemployment rate for black youths is 59 percent. The unemployment rate is a widely used term with a specific definition: It refers to the percentage of jobless people in the workforce who are actively seeking employment. In May, the unemployment rate for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 18.7 percent, or less than one-third of Trump’s claim...Clearly, black youths have a harder time finding work than whites. But Trump exaggerates the issue through his misleading use of statistics. We rate his statement Mostly False. None are free from bias. The solution to oligarchy is democracy, not monarchy. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not less speech.
  - jasonlotito 9y ago
    Did you actual read the differences, which are bigger than than simply a number. In one case, the number is backed up by evidence which is provided by the campaign. Politifact can then verify that the number isn't just made up or based on nothing. It's mostly true if you understand the context. As for Trump, they didn't provide anything to back up the statements. They had to dig to find where he got the information, and nothing they found backs up what he said. Now, you can argue the sources and the meaning, and that's the problem with statistics. But there is a difference between the two, more than just 8 percentage points.
AlexandrB 9y ago
Traditional media has had a long tradition of informal, ethical standards that goes into "reporting"[1]. It wasn't perfect, but it was something. Now that we've flipped that apple cart with technology it's not easy to replace centuries of culture with an algorithm. What I fear is that the problem is fractal. Solving the easy parts of the problem scales well and is thus economical. The hairy parts of the problem don't scale and are left by the wayside. For an example of this look at YouTube content ID. It works well enough to placate content owners. Making it any better (e.g. fair use) requires human intervention so it's not gonna happen. [1] A parallel in the political sphere is Trump himself. He's violated a bunch of informal understandings about what a president is/does. Now there's no going back.
cryoshon 9y ago
just get a bunch of scientists who have no connection to any of the relevant fields to redirect their attentions to finding out if a thing is fact or fiction and i assure you that you will have an answer that is more honest and more accurate than otherwise PS they'll need funding, and more time than you have to give
jos3 9y ago
This is an old problem. What is new is how fast things spread. Delaying when the upvotes/retweet/view counts become visible, will reduce the speed with which info spreads, and there will be less chaos. Speed is highly overrated and it's value falsely tied to "engagement". Easy to run this experiment on HN - only show users their karma a week after their post gets published post quality will increase and engagement will drop. Which is an ideal outcome in a world where fiction trumps fact by a huge and exponentially increasing margin.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sova 9y ago
  I like your style. I am really surprised no one has thought of this. Nominating you for Minister of the Internet Discussion Boards, next time there's an open election :D

sova 9y ago

Independent fact checking firms exist, I don't think it is a stretch to distill their info into an easily comprehended badge icon. Google, according to their Counsel, is already giving anti terror groups flagging software.

goialoq 9y ago
Which independent fact-checking firms do you trust?
- sova 9y ago
  Currently just Snopes
rgbrenner 9y ago
So you propose Tampa Bay Times Politifact, and The Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org become arbiters of truth? Have you actually read many of their articles? A lot of it depends on judgement calls of the person doing the fact checking. Leeway is given or taken by the fact checker.. and that amount varies by who is doing the checking. (And you can’t eliminate this because human language is so flexible that it will always require a judgement call to be made in all but the most blatant lies.) There are plenty of examples.. here's one: Politifact rates this as mostly true: Bernie Sanders says 'real unemployment' rate for African American youth is 51 percent http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/... Politifact rates this as mostly false: Trump misleadingly puts black youth unemployment rate at 59 percent http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/ http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/do... The rate is nowhere near that high according to the BLS: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm If politifact can't call out Bernie's 51%, like they did for Trump.. why would they get this trusted position you seem to think they are qualified for? Politifact is run by human beings. Their judgement shouldn't be substituted for the judgement of others. You can't outsource critical thinking.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  +100 One was "accurate but need clarification"; the other "exaggerating and misleading". > Sanders said that for African-Americans between the ages of 17 and 20, "the real unemployment rate … is 51 percent." His terminology was off, but the numbers he used check out, and his general point was correct -- that in an apples-to-apples comparison, African-American youth have significantly worse prospects in the job market than either Hispanics or whites do. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. > Trump says the unemployment rate for black youths is 59 percent. The unemployment rate is a widely used term with a specific definition: It refers to the percentage of jobless people in the workforce who are actively seeking employment. In May, the unemployment rate for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 18.7 percent, or less than one-third of Trump’s claim...Clearly, black youths have a harder time finding work than whites. But Trump exaggerates the issue through his misleading use of statistics. We rate his statement Mostly False. None are free from bias. The solution to oligarchy is democracy, not monarchy. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not less speech.
- jasonlotito 9y ago
  Did you actual read the differences, which are bigger than than simply a number. In one case, the number is backed up by evidence which is provided by the campaign. Politifact can then verify that the number isn't just made up or based on nothing. It's mostly true if you understand the context. As for Trump, they didn't provide anything to back up the statements. They had to dig to find where he got the information, and nothing they found backs up what he said. Now, you can argue the sources and the meaning, and that's the problem with statistics. But there is a difference between the two, more than just 8 percentage points.

AlexandrB 9y ago

Traditional media has had a long tradition of informal, ethical standards that goes into "reporting"[1]. It wasn't perfect, but it was something. Now that we've flipped that apple cart with technology it's not easy to replace centuries of culture with an algorithm. What I fear is that the problem is fractal. Solving the easy parts of the problem scales well and is thus economical. The hairy parts of the problem don't scale and are left by the wayside. For an example of this look at YouTube content ID. It works well enough to placate content owners. Making it any better (e.g. fair use) requires human intervention so it's not gonna happen. [1] A parallel in the political sphere is Trump himself. He's violated a bunch of informal understandings about what a president is/does. Now there's no going back.

cryoshon 9y ago

just get a bunch of scientists who have no connection to any of the relevant fields to redirect their attentions to finding out if a thing is fact or fiction and i assure you that you will have an answer that is more honest and more accurate than otherwise PS they'll need funding, and more time than you have to give

jos3 9y ago

This is an old problem. What is new is how fast things spread. Delaying when the upvotes/retweet/view counts become visible, will reduce the speed with which info spreads, and there will be less chaos. Speed is highly overrated and it's value falsely tied to "engagement". Easy to run this experiment on HN - only show users their karma a week after their post gets published post quality will increase and engagement will drop. Which is an ideal outcome in a world where fiction trumps fact by a huge and exponentially increasing margin.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sova 9y ago
I like your style. I am really surprised no one has thought of this. Nominating you for Minister of the Internet Discussion Boards, next time there's an open election :D