4 ms·

I'm optimistic this will be solved in the near future -- it is a UX problem. Like the "Not secure" in browser, what we need is a "Potentially fake" icon that ca

I'm optimistic this will be solved in the near future -- it is a UX problem. Like the "Not secure" in browser, what we need is a "Potentially fake" icon that can be flagged/used on various platforms. The advent of the fact-checker platforms is the first bit. Next would be API/automation, followed by the UI/UX changes.

adamnemecek 9y ago
The problem is that the incentives are perverted. With "Not secure", the platform has an incentive to deploy https. With fake news tho, they are potentially making money from explosive news so why would they go out of their way to combat it. Like facebook is claiming to be combating it but I don't think they care that much. I can't help but feel they are combating it due to the uproar, not due to the goodness of their heart.
mattnewton 9y ago
I disagree- there isn’t a third party that we can safely trust the “potentially fake” icon to, because they will be a) overwhelmed by how cheap it is to product content from anywhere and b) a weak point to be comprimised, suspected or real.
konschubert 9y ago
No, the problem is deciding what's fake. With SSL, all you have to do is check if the certificate comes from a certificate authority you trust. Do we want want certification authorities for news? (Maybe yes?)
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> The advent of the fact-checker platforms is the first bit This just punts the problem to another layer of abstraction. Who chooses the fact checkers? Why wouldn't every "publication", valid or not, spin up a fact checker?
booleandilemma 9y ago
So when I visit Drudge Report I’ll get a red “potentially fake” banner and when I visit CNN I’ll get a green “trusted” banner? No thanks.
CM30 9y ago
So in other words... if your opinion is a minority one that the mainstream media don't agree with, then you're basically stuffed. Fact checkers have biases, and if they're trusted to basically fact check the whole internet for web browsers, they'll have even more of an incentive not to be fair and neutral. What stops them from basically labelling alternative media as false across the board? Or labelling based on the personal opinions of the staff who work there? Seems like a political minefield with antitrust claims just waiting to happen.
netsharc 9y ago
Except that Facebook's "Disputed" flag on news stories lead to the stories being read more... https://gizmodo.com/facebook-ditches-disputed-news-tag-after-it-totally-ba-1821497625 https://gizmodo.com/facebook-ditches-disputed-news-tag-after...

adamnemecek 9y ago

The problem is that the incentives are perverted. With "Not secure", the platform has an incentive to deploy https. With fake news tho, they are potentially making money from explosive news so why would they go out of their way to combat it. Like facebook is claiming to be combating it but I don't think they care that much. I can't help but feel they are combating it due to the uproar, not due to the goodness of their heart.

mattnewton 9y ago

I disagree- there isn’t a third party that we can safely trust the “potentially fake” icon to, because they will be a) overwhelmed by how cheap it is to product content from anywhere and b) a weak point to be comprimised, suspected or real.

konschubert 9y ago

No, the problem is deciding what's fake. With SSL, all you have to do is check if the certificate comes from a certificate authority you trust. Do we want want certification authorities for news? (Maybe yes?)

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> The advent of the fact-checker platforms is the first bit This just punts the problem to another layer of abstraction. Who chooses the fact checkers? Why wouldn't every "publication", valid or not, spin up a fact checker?

booleandilemma 9y ago

So when I visit Drudge Report I’ll get a red “potentially fake” banner and when I visit CNN I’ll get a green “trusted” banner? No thanks.

CM30 9y ago

So in other words... if your opinion is a minority one that the mainstream media don't agree with, then you're basically stuffed. Fact checkers have biases, and if they're trusted to basically fact check the whole internet for web browsers, they'll have even more of an incentive not to be fair and neutral. What stops them from basically labelling alternative media as false across the board? Or labelling based on the personal opinions of the staff who work there? Seems like a political minefield with antitrust claims just waiting to happen.

netsharc 9y ago

Except that Facebook's "Disputed" flag on news stories lead to the stories being read more... https://gizmodo.com/facebook-ditches-disputed-news-tag-after-it-totally-ba-1821497625 https://gizmodo.com/facebook-ditches-disputed-news-tag-after...