7 ms·

They mention archiving a bunch of Trump stuff, but are they just focusing on conservatives? There's a bunch of misinformation on both sides, and if they're rea

by taborj 7y ago

They mention archiving a bunch of Trump stuff, but are they just focusing on conservatives? There's a bunch of misinformation on both sides, and if they're really after the truth, they should be paying the same amount of time and attention to both right and left. Somewhat related: it's sad but perhaps not inevitable that everyone basically has to do their own research to find out what's actually going on. These days, I don't trust any one source; I find out what that source used as their source, and go read that. And if that source has a source, I look at that. This means I oftentimes find myself looking at the raw numbers of, say, gun deaths or immigration numbers, etc. It's extremely time consuming, but immensely illuminating. If only there were some organizations that would do this for me, without adding in some bias or interpretation. We could call them "news organizations."

SamBam 7y ago
What gives you the impression that they're "focusing on conservatives?" Do you have evidence for this statement? You mention archiving Trump's tweets. Do you think that they might do this because he is the President of the United States?
- taborj 7y ago
  I mention this because of these choice quotes from the linked story: "“We’re bringing up a generation that turns to their screens, without a library of information accessible via screens,” said Mr Kahle. Some have taken advantage of this “new information system”, he argued — and the result is “Trump and Brexit”." ... "After President Trump’s election, and as the existence of disinformation campaigns that sought to sway voters came to light, the archive began several new projects. One of these was the Trump Archive, a collection of the US president’s television appearances that now contains more than 6,000 videos, including from before he took office. Separately, as part of the effort to document the 45th president’s often-contradictory statements, the organisation is cataloguing Mr Trump’s tweets." The fact that they call it the "Trump Archive" and not the "Presidential Archive" speaks volumes.
  - Swenrekcah 7y ago
    One of the defining aspects of both the Brexit campaign and Trumpism is blatant disregard for facts and the delibirate spread of misinformation that is heavy on one side, and an order or two of magnitude less on the other side. That just is the way of it, however sad that is. It is not the first time that states use misinformation as effective attacks on other states, but that doesn’t mean it should be left unchallenged. This is coming from a citizen of neither the US nor UK and as such a bit of an outsiders perspective, mostly free from domestic politics.
    - taborj 7y ago
      that is heavy on one side, and an order or two of magnitude less on the other side I disagree with this assertion. I think both sides are equally guilty of this, but on different topics, which can make apples to apples comparisons difficult. For example, take a look at the numbers behind gun laws and deaths in the US, and you'll find misinformation propagated by the left. If you look at climate change information, you'll find misinformation propagated by the right.
      - Swenrekcah 7y ago
        I agree but I specifically mentioned the topics of Brexit and the admittetly broader ‘Trumpism’. On these topics the asymmetry is phenomenal. Take the recent ‘sharpiegate’ as an example for how little regard, contempt even, Trump has for the truth and facts.
        afiori 7y ago
        While I agree that Trump has no qualms in lying to cover his mistakes, the left and the media have no qualms in misinterpreting what Trump says and does.
        Swenrekcah 7y ago
        Some try their best to be fair, I'd like to name the Economist as one. It is unfortunate however that the nature of media monetization encourages inaccurate exaggerations if they make Trump seem even more of a buffoon than he really and truly is. However, we really should put much more pressure on elected officials to be truthful and show of integrity, than we should put on the media or people in general.
- weberc2 7y ago
  (I don't have a dog in this fight) From TFA: "The result is Trump and Brexit!" and generally the lack of anything disparaging toward the left. The article and the Internet Archive plainly isn't "focused on conservatives", but it sort of undermines its purported mission (commitment to preserving the truth) in the implication that conservatives are unique in espousing misinformation, even if the implication is unintentional.
  - magashna 7y ago
    Wouldn't it be up to X side to submit links to IA? Also if a site opt-out and their historical data is wiped, that isn't IA's bias, it's the site choosing to opt-out.
    - weberc2 7y ago
      Per the article, we're discussing IA's efforts to flag "misinformation".
  - efa 7y ago
    Yes, for an organization that should be above it all, why would you even mention any political preference. They are are a machine that sucks down data. They should have no opinion of the data (as an organization).
- mcantelon 7y ago
  Seems like it's Forbes that's doing that, not IA.
- efa 7y ago
  "...the archive began several new projects. One of these was the Trump Archive..." Specifically having a project for just Trump. Do they have one for whoever is the current president?
IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
They have an archive of "330bn web pages" (quote from article). I'm sure those are not exclusively conservative. One or twenty might even be dictionary entries for "example".
- taborj 7y ago
  I'm mainly asking the question because the article implies[1] that they're mainly archiving Trump stuff, not in general archiving misinformation. [1] yes, I know it doesn't say it outright, but I don't think it's a stretch to get the gist.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
    So you're criticising the article for making an argument that you realise is happening entirely in your head?
    - taborj 7y ago
      Articles can be written in such a way as to imply meaning that's not specifically stated, and this is one example.
    - TomMckenny 7y ago
      All fact checking is opposed by the far-right worldwide (and is in fact a threat). Justification for opposing it is sought after the opinion has been formed. And since denouncing facts themselves doesn't work in all societies yet, opposition requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics and fallacious reasoning like "all sides lie" or, with no justification, "fact checkers strategically target lies that serve my political preferences"
      - Cuuugi 7y ago
        cough https://www.politifact.com/subjects/corrections-and-updates/ https://www.politifact.com/subjects/corrections-and-updates/
      - 7y ago
minikites 7y ago
>This means I oftentimes find myself looking at the raw numbers of, say, gun deaths or immigration numbers, etc. Data is meaningless without context and context is inevitably political and subject to bias.
- mcantelon 7y ago
  Good rhetoric to have on speed dial when encountering data that contradicts one's beliefs.
  - minikites 7y ago
    Okay, explain to me how data in isolation communicates meaning.
    - mcantelon 7y ago
      The word "meaningless" is defined as "lacking any significance". The claim that data lacks any significance until someone extracts meaning from it seems most useful, apart from philosophical discussions, as a rhetorical attempt to make data secondary to interpretation and ergo something that can be waved away by belief systems.
      - afiori 7y ago
        But sometimes it is true, for example in the sense that data alone does not tell much about what is being measured and its significance. For example high levels of cholesterol are negatively correlated to heart infarction, mostly because the population at highest risk is under medication and has so extremely low cholesterol. In this case the data itself is meaningless as it does not contain its own significance. This does not mean that we can freely discard data we don't like, it is important and useful, just not necessarily intrinsically meaningful. A good analysis is made so that it is obvious to justify this layer of interpretation.
- ralusek 7y ago
  Context is data. All you're saying is that data is better when there is additional relevant data. Yes...
commandlinefan 7y ago
> are they just focusing on conservatives? If history is any guide, then they are or will be. As a thought experiment, can you think of anything left-wing-supporting that you even _can_ call misinformation? I can’t. I mean - I can think of a lot of things that I dare not name as misinformation, so I am physically capable, but I know better than to risk putting my name to it.
TomMckenny 7y ago
> These days, I don't trust... The goal of the new style autocrats and their advocates is not a particular propaganda line but to create doubt in reality based information sources. Individuals can follow rabbit holes until the find the story that matches their previously held world view and so guarantee supporters never defect. For example, you can always find an obscure website "proving" climate change is a hoax. If you now distrust reputable sources and weight every site roughly equally, you could easily convince yourself that no one knows if there is climate change or not.
- afiori 7y ago
  > For example, you can always find an obscure website "proving" climate change is a hoax. But according to the assumption then you check their own sources and their validity. Also while the "climate change is an hoax" is little more than a conspiracy theory in terms of validity, some prediction have been proven false. All together climate change is an undeniable truth, singularly each prediction is far from undeniable on average. > If you now distrust reputable sources Considering the frequency of retractions on reputable sources (especially in bombshell articles e.g. the last scoop on Kavanaugh where the NYT forgot to mention that the main witness apparently did not remember the event) you are better off with a weighted average of various source where you try and factor in each source bias.
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    That main witness "bombshell" is not remotely what is written in the NYT. It is what Fox news _says_ the NYT wrote knowing the audience will never actually read the article. And is in fact a rather blatant example of undermining reality based media as an "enemy of the people" >Considering the frequency of retraction What, even approximately, is the rate of retraction? And more generally, note the irony that if honest journals correct errors, it is portrayed as proof of conspiracy yet those outlets that don't (or "double down") are considered reliable. Perhaps the NYT should follow politicians and the lower grade media and aggressively deny anything that makes them look bad.
    - 7y ago
BeetleB 7y ago
>There's a bunch of misinformation on both sides, and if they're really after the truth, they should be paying the same amount of time and attention to both right and left. Why the same amount? Shouldn't the amount of time be in proportion to the misinformation originating from each side? > Somewhat related: it's sad but perhaps not inevitable that everyone basically has to do their own research to find out what's actually going on. These days, I don't trust any one source; I hale from the pre-Internet era. I can't think of any day where trusting one source was a good idea. The Internet (and online ads) has just made it easier to dig deeper.
- afiori 7y ago
  > The Internet (and online ads) has just made it easier to dig deeper. Also easier to make sensational headlines, easier to issue silent retractions, easier to make shadows edits to already published stories, easier to copy minutes old news in a journalistic game of telephone, etc.

by taborj 7y ago

SamBam 7y ago

What gives you the impression that they're "focusing on conservatives?" Do you have evidence for this statement? You mention archiving Trump's tweets. Do you think that they might do this because he is the President of the United States?

taborj 7y ago
I mention this because of these choice quotes from the linked story: "“We’re bringing up a generation that turns to their screens, without a library of information accessible via screens,” said Mr Kahle. Some have taken advantage of this “new information system”, he argued — and the result is “Trump and Brexit”." ... "After President Trump’s election, and as the existence of disinformation campaigns that sought to sway voters came to light, the archive began several new projects. One of these was the Trump Archive, a collection of the US president’s television appearances that now contains more than 6,000 videos, including from before he took office. Separately, as part of the effort to document the 45th president’s often-contradictory statements, the organisation is cataloguing Mr Trump’s tweets." The fact that they call it the "Trump Archive" and not the "Presidential Archive" speaks volumes.
- Swenrekcah 7y ago
  One of the defining aspects of both the Brexit campaign and Trumpism is blatant disregard for facts and the delibirate spread of misinformation that is heavy on one side, and an order or two of magnitude less on the other side. That just is the way of it, however sad that is. It is not the first time that states use misinformation as effective attacks on other states, but that doesn’t mean it should be left unchallenged. This is coming from a citizen of neither the US nor UK and as such a bit of an outsiders perspective, mostly free from domestic politics.
  - taborj 7y ago
    that is heavy on one side, and an order or two of magnitude less on the other side I disagree with this assertion. I think both sides are equally guilty of this, but on different topics, which can make apples to apples comparisons difficult. For example, take a look at the numbers behind gun laws and deaths in the US, and you'll find misinformation propagated by the left. If you look at climate change information, you'll find misinformation propagated by the right.
    - Swenrekcah 7y ago
      I agree but I specifically mentioned the topics of Brexit and the admittetly broader ‘Trumpism’. On these topics the asymmetry is phenomenal. Take the recent ‘sharpiegate’ as an example for how little regard, contempt even, Trump has for the truth and facts.
      - afiori 7y ago
        While I agree that Trump has no qualms in lying to cover his mistakes, the left and the media have no qualms in misinterpreting what Trump says and does.
        Swenrekcah 7y ago
        Some try their best to be fair, I'd like to name the Economist as one. It is unfortunate however that the nature of media monetization encourages inaccurate exaggerations if they make Trump seem even more of a buffoon than he really and truly is. However, we really should put much more pressure on elected officials to be truthful and show of integrity, than we should put on the media or people in general.
weberc2 7y ago
(I don't have a dog in this fight) From TFA: "The result is Trump and Brexit!" and generally the lack of anything disparaging toward the left. The article and the Internet Archive plainly isn't "focused on conservatives", but it sort of undermines its purported mission (commitment to preserving the truth) in the implication that conservatives are unique in espousing misinformation, even if the implication is unintentional.
- magashna 7y ago
  Wouldn't it be up to X side to submit links to IA? Also if a site opt-out and their historical data is wiped, that isn't IA's bias, it's the site choosing to opt-out.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    Per the article, we're discussing IA's efforts to flag "misinformation".
- efa 7y ago
  Yes, for an organization that should be above it all, why would you even mention any political preference. They are are a machine that sucks down data. They should have no opinion of the data (as an organization).
mcantelon 7y ago
Seems like it's Forbes that's doing that, not IA.
efa 7y ago
"...the archive began several new projects. One of these was the Trump Archive..." Specifically having a project for just Trump. Do they have one for whoever is the current president?

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago

They have an archive of "330bn web pages" (quote from article). I'm sure those are not exclusively conservative. One or twenty might even be dictionary entries for "example".

taborj 7y ago
I'm mainly asking the question because the article implies[1] that they're mainly archiving Trump stuff, not in general archiving misinformation. [1] yes, I know it doesn't say it outright, but I don't think it's a stretch to get the gist.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  So you're criticising the article for making an argument that you realise is happening entirely in your head?
  - taborj 7y ago
    Articles can be written in such a way as to imply meaning that's not specifically stated, and this is one example.
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    All fact checking is opposed by the far-right worldwide (and is in fact a threat). Justification for opposing it is sought after the opinion has been formed. And since denouncing facts themselves doesn't work in all societies yet, opposition requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics and fallacious reasoning like "all sides lie" or, with no justification, "fact checkers strategically target lies that serve my political preferences"
    - Cuuugi 7y ago
      cough https://www.politifact.com/subjects/corrections-and-updates/ https://www.politifact.com/subjects/corrections-and-updates/
    - 7y ago

minikites 7y ago

>This means I oftentimes find myself looking at the raw numbers of, say, gun deaths or immigration numbers, etc. Data is meaningless without context and context is inevitably political and subject to bias.

mcantelon 7y ago
Good rhetoric to have on speed dial when encountering data that contradicts one's beliefs.
- minikites 7y ago
  Okay, explain to me how data in isolation communicates meaning.
  - mcantelon 7y ago
    The word "meaningless" is defined as "lacking any significance". The claim that data lacks any significance until someone extracts meaning from it seems most useful, apart from philosophical discussions, as a rhetorical attempt to make data secondary to interpretation and ergo something that can be waved away by belief systems.
    - afiori 7y ago
      But sometimes it is true, for example in the sense that data alone does not tell much about what is being measured and its significance. For example high levels of cholesterol are negatively correlated to heart infarction, mostly because the population at highest risk is under medication and has so extremely low cholesterol. In this case the data itself is meaningless as it does not contain its own significance. This does not mean that we can freely discard data we don't like, it is important and useful, just not necessarily intrinsically meaningful. A good analysis is made so that it is obvious to justify this layer of interpretation.
ralusek 7y ago
Context is data. All you're saying is that data is better when there is additional relevant data. Yes...

commandlinefan 7y ago

> are they just focusing on conservatives? If history is any guide, then they are or will be. As a thought experiment, can you think of anything left-wing-supporting that you even _can_ call misinformation? I can’t. I mean - I can think of a lot of things that I dare not name as misinformation, so I am physically capable, but I know better than to risk putting my name to it.

TomMckenny 7y ago

> These days, I don't trust... The goal of the new style autocrats and their advocates is not a particular propaganda line but to create doubt in reality based information sources. Individuals can follow rabbit holes until the find the story that matches their previously held world view and so guarantee supporters never defect. For example, you can always find an obscure website "proving" climate change is a hoax. If you now distrust reputable sources and weight every site roughly equally, you could easily convince yourself that no one knows if there is climate change or not.

afiori 7y ago
> For example, you can always find an obscure website "proving" climate change is a hoax. But according to the assumption then you check their own sources and their validity. Also while the "climate change is an hoax" is little more than a conspiracy theory in terms of validity, some prediction have been proven false. All together climate change is an undeniable truth, singularly each prediction is far from undeniable on average. > If you now distrust reputable sources Considering the frequency of retractions on reputable sources (especially in bombshell articles e.g. the last scoop on Kavanaugh where the NYT forgot to mention that the main witness apparently did not remember the event) you are better off with a weighted average of various source where you try and factor in each source bias.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  That main witness "bombshell" is not remotely what is written in the NYT. It is what Fox news _says_ the NYT wrote knowing the audience will never actually read the article. And is in fact a rather blatant example of undermining reality based media as an "enemy of the people" >Considering the frequency of retraction What, even approximately, is the rate of retraction? And more generally, note the irony that if honest journals correct errors, it is portrayed as proof of conspiracy yet those outlets that don't (or "double down") are considered reliable. Perhaps the NYT should follow politicians and the lower grade media and aggressively deny anything that makes them look bad.
  - 7y ago

BeetleB 7y ago

>There's a bunch of misinformation on both sides, and if they're really after the truth, they should be paying the same amount of time and attention to both right and left. Why the same amount? Shouldn't the amount of time be in proportion to the misinformation originating from each side? > Somewhat related: it's sad but perhaps not inevitable that everyone basically has to do their own research to find out what's actually going on. These days, I don't trust any one source; I hale from the pre-Internet era. I can't think of any day where trusting one source was a good idea. The Internet (and online ads) has just made it easier to dig deeper.

afiori 7y ago
> The Internet (and online ads) has just made it easier to dig deeper. Also easier to make sensational headlines, easier to issue silent retractions, easier to make shadows edits to already published stories, easier to copy minutes old news in a journalistic game of telephone, etc.