4 ms·

The problem is, "respected fact checkers" are anything but. The HN discussion you linked to actually mentions some interesting things that these fact checkers o

• otterley 7y ago
  I agree that there might be evidence, and Factcheck.org may have gotten that wrong. But perfection isn't the bar we're aiming for, nor is it practically attainable - "usually correct" is reasonable. Moreover, let's not confuse testimonial evidence with fact. They are not identical. In our judicial system, the jury is the finder of fact; they weigh the evidence to make conclusions. We also can't let a minor technical error in a tangential report invalidate the rest of what otherwise is a lie -- specifically the primary bold claim in the example advertisement that's at the heart of the article.
  • barry-cotter 7y ago
    Correct except when it matters is worse than known sea of lies and misinformation.
  • WarOnPrivacy 7y ago
    These are good points. Moreover, they're unusually well made.
  • buboard 7y ago
    "usually correct" is what the general media is, and they all usually have an agenda. Whenever they get it wrong, the process of commenting itself is a fact-checking exercise that s usually better than the "fact checkers" (case in point this thread). That nullifies the idea of factcheckers imho I think the biggest issue with social media is: do not make truth a popularity contest
• tomjakubowski 7y ago
  Biden openly bragged about getting Shokin fired, though not under oath, and he stopped short of saying it was to protect his son. https://youtu.be/Q0_AqpdwqK4?t=51m49s https://youtu.be/Q0_AqpdwqK4?t=51m49s edit: phone brain skipped over the "on his behalf" part of the sentence, I thought that they'd said there was no evidence Biden even pressured the government to fire Shokin.
  • altcognito 7y ago
    The entire us government was pressuring Ukraine to change prosecutors. The idea that Joe Biden came up with this idea on his own is just lazy gobbling up of propaganda.
    • otterley 7y ago
      Also, Biden didn't promise Ukraine that they were getting $1B if they fired the prosecutor, which is the false claim in the advertisement referenced by this article. He threatened they would not get $1B unless they did. In other words, it wasn't a sufficient condition; it was a necessary condition. Surely those of us who participate on HN and code for a living can appreciate the logical difference: if (prosector_employed) { ukraine_bank_bal += 0; } else { if (other_conditions) { ukraine_bank_bal += 1_000_000_000_000; } }
    • tomjakubowski 7y ago
      Biden didn't mind taking the credit for getting it done. "I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
      • altcognito 7y ago
        Politician takes credit for something he didn’t do, news at 11. You’ve not shown anything.
• altcognito 7y ago
  Both are still true. The company was under investigation not the individual. The US senate also signed a letter in bipartisan agreement that Shokin wasn’t pursuing cases like Burisma hard enough.
• enraged_camel 7y ago
  I can’t believe people on HN, of all places, are peddling conspiracy theories by corrupting the facts. Fact 1: Burisma was under investigation. Fact 2: Hunter Biden was on Burisma’s board. Fact 3: Hunter Biden himself was not under investigation. Not only that, there is no evidence that the investigation Burisma was under had any relevance to Hunter Biden. edit: downvoters better explain themselves. If you have evidence to the contrary, let’s see it.
  • ineedasername 7y ago
    You may just be getting down voted because, correct or not, you're furthering a somewhat divisive thread that is becoming increasingly off-topic.
• loceng 7y ago
  The endgame is a hierarchical structure, where leaders who have overall moderation and organization control abilities for "their system" - within a decentralized system that allows full mobility of users to switch to someone else's system as a failsafe - are highlighted and essentially ranked by the number of users "following" - trusting - their moderation guidelines, and trusting they are making sure they're enforcing them adequately, efficiently, and in an acceptable, timely manner. E.g. The system of users you're part of - who their "leader" is or who is at the lead - acts as a filter setting creating a safe space of users, community, that will be, is being moderated in a way that aligns with you - that you agree with; do you want to be in a good, healthy parental environment or a bad parenting environment? There could also be a Board of Directors or Advisory layer - so perhaps known people who take a stand for freedom of speech like Jordan Peterson would be on advisory boards, or even perhaps taking a lead role himself if he cared to take on that role - whatever that ends up entailing.