4 ms·
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 nat
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoBut 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.