4 ms·

Not cool. I can see that browsers want to warn people of (technically) dangerous websites. But websites that are 'wrong'? Slippiest of slopes.

by s9w 8y ago

viraptor 8y ago
This is an interesting case where the website is wrong by its own admissions. The number of redactions released for Daily Mail after publication is the highest in the UK (compared to other tabloids). It's a kind of slippery slope, but it would be much worse if they made that judgement against some vaguely reasonable paper.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  either way, browser vendors should not be the arbiters of truth. I can't think of a news source that hasn't had at least some falsities published - it's the nature of the industry. Sure, the Daily Mail is notably worse than others. But to single them out for "fake news" labelling is worryingly arbitrary.
  - stingraycharles 8y ago
    I find it’s very interesting, because isn’t this type of thing precisely what lawmakers want Facebook and the likes to do, warn people not to trust certain content? Since they’re both tools instrumental for consuming content, what makes it different when Microsoft does it?
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      I don't think Facebook should do it either because fundamentally I don't want any given group to have authority over whether something is true or false. I want fact-finding to be a distributed effort where claims and counter-claims can be made by reputable news outlets or individual citizen-journalists holding evidence alike. Otherwise, we allow a single entity to decide the truth by imposition, where said entity may not know all the facts or may even have its own agenda.
  - zimpenfish 8y ago
    > But to single them out for "fake news" labelling is worryingly arbitrary. Wikipedia did it in 2017 - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia... It's not like this is a random bolt from the blue.
    - ihattendorf 8y ago
      But Wikipedia isn't my browser. I don't think anyone is arguing that Daily Mail isn't garbage, just that it isn't the browser's job to decide what is and isn't garbage.
- s9w 8y ago
  Newsguard already managed to get installed on school and library PCs in some US states. If they succeed, they will soon be the most powerful organization in existence, as they will have total control of information. I don't blame Newsguard - of course they want more power for themselves. But I do blame Microsoft for working with them.
  - matthewmacleod 8y ago
    That’s dumb. Nobody is being prevented from reading the content. They’re just being warned—correctly—that the information is unreliable.
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      the issue at hand is how they determine reliability and where they draw the line at acceptable vs unacceptable. I'd argue the left-leaning equivalent of the Daily Mail would be BuzzFeed, complete with regularly posting skewed or outright false information (see this example from a couple of days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/business/media/buzzfeed-news-trump-michael-cohen-mueller.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/business/media/buzzfeed-n...). If they want to be consistent you could argue they should place the same warning on BuzzFeed. But then how much falsity constitutes "unreliable"? And how do we warn about places people go for news that aren't news organisations, like twitter or facebook? There's loads of nonsense on those too and plenty of people rely on them as sources.
      - zimpenfish 8y ago
        > see this example from a couple of days ago “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate.” That could mean anything from "flat out wrong" to "they got a single word wrong in the reported speech but we don't want to tip anyone's hand whilst we're still working on this". It definitely doesn't warrant being described as "skewed or outright false information" until we know more, does it?
- richardknop 8y ago
  That's a slippery slope though as all publications have redactions when they print stuff that's incorrect / wrong. Arguing that Daily Mail has more redactions than others is very dangerous. New York Times had to print corrections or redactions in the past, would it be acceptable for a browser to warn users that NYT should not be trusted?
gnu8 8y ago
I agree that Microsoft in particular cannot be trusted to do this. They will inevitably display the same warning if the user attempts to view, say, the Halloween documents or visit Linux.org.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  My understanding is the service itself isn't being provided by Microsoft.

Not cool. I can see that browsers want to warn people of (technically) dangerous websites. But websites that are 'wrong'? Slippiest of slopes.

by s9w 8y ago

Not cool. I can see that browsers want to warn people of (technically) dangerous websites. But websites that are 'wrong'? Slippiest of slopes.

viraptor 8y ago

This is an interesting case where the website is wrong by its own admissions. The number of redactions released for Daily Mail after publication is the highest in the UK (compared to other tabloids). It's a kind of slippery slope, but it would be much worse if they made that judgement against some vaguely reasonable paper.

beaconstudios 8y ago
either way, browser vendors should not be the arbiters of truth. I can't think of a news source that hasn't had at least some falsities published - it's the nature of the industry. Sure, the Daily Mail is notably worse than others. But to single them out for "fake news" labelling is worryingly arbitrary.
- stingraycharles 8y ago
  I find it’s very interesting, because isn’t this type of thing precisely what lawmakers want Facebook and the likes to do, warn people not to trust certain content? Since they’re both tools instrumental for consuming content, what makes it different when Microsoft does it?
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    I don't think Facebook should do it either because fundamentally I don't want any given group to have authority over whether something is true or false. I want fact-finding to be a distributed effort where claims and counter-claims can be made by reputable news outlets or individual citizen-journalists holding evidence alike. Otherwise, we allow a single entity to decide the truth by imposition, where said entity may not know all the facts or may even have its own agenda.
- zimpenfish 8y ago
  > But to single them out for "fake news" labelling is worryingly arbitrary. Wikipedia did it in 2017 - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia... It's not like this is a random bolt from the blue.
  - ihattendorf 8y ago
    But Wikipedia isn't my browser. I don't think anyone is arguing that Daily Mail isn't garbage, just that it isn't the browser's job to decide what is and isn't garbage.
s9w 8y ago
Newsguard already managed to get installed on school and library PCs in some US states. If they succeed, they will soon be the most powerful organization in existence, as they will have total control of information. I don't blame Newsguard - of course they want more power for themselves. But I do blame Microsoft for working with them.
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  That’s dumb. Nobody is being prevented from reading the content. They’re just being warned—correctly—that the information is unreliable.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    the issue at hand is how they determine reliability and where they draw the line at acceptable vs unacceptable. I'd argue the left-leaning equivalent of the Daily Mail would be BuzzFeed, complete with regularly posting skewed or outright false information (see this example from a couple of days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/business/media/buzzfeed-news-trump-michael-cohen-mueller.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/business/media/buzzfeed-n...). If they want to be consistent you could argue they should place the same warning on BuzzFeed. But then how much falsity constitutes "unreliable"? And how do we warn about places people go for news that aren't news organisations, like twitter or facebook? There's loads of nonsense on those too and plenty of people rely on them as sources.
    - zimpenfish 8y ago
      > see this example from a couple of days ago “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate.” That could mean anything from "flat out wrong" to "they got a single word wrong in the reported speech but we don't want to tip anyone's hand whilst we're still working on this". It definitely doesn't warrant being described as "skewed or outright false information" until we know more, does it?
richardknop 8y ago
That's a slippery slope though as all publications have redactions when they print stuff that's incorrect / wrong. Arguing that Daily Mail has more redactions than others is very dangerous. New York Times had to print corrections or redactions in the past, would it be acceptable for a browser to warn users that NYT should not be trusted?

gnu8 8y ago

I agree that Microsoft in particular cannot be trusted to do this. They will inevitably display the same warning if the user attempts to view, say, the Halloween documents or visit Linux.org.

tonyedgecombe 8y ago
My understanding is the service itself isn't being provided by Microsoft.