3 ms·
The article doesn't give any indication that this process will be transparent or how they intend to classify things as "true, false, misleading or disputed". I
by otaviokz 8y ago
The article doesn't give any indication that this process will be transparent or how they intend to classify things as "true, false, misleading or disputed".
I guess it's a new thing and is probably still being tested/evaluated. But so far what I've seen is social platforms "self policing", with little or no input from official regulation entities (i.e. controlled by democratically elected government).
Even though I know I'm a cynic by nature, I try hard but just can't see how private organisations deciding what is fact or not can be better than fake news.
- OJFord 8y agoAgreed - and I don't think 'misleading' is objective, it's perfectly possible for something to be true but also misleading, so the latter should get higher precedence. It still requires some judgement. For example, one could look up the largest man in the world - let's call him Bob - and declare that 'Bob is the greatest man in the world'. While true, it's certainly misleading, and probably an intentional use of 'great' s different meanings. (Subtler examples harder to come up with on the spot, but certainly exist and would be more effective in practice.)