4 ms·

> You are basically suggesting that no one has an interest in disproving something on the internet No. I'm saying it's an internet standard commercial practice

> You are basically suggesting that no one has an interest in disproving something on the internet No. I'm saying it's an internet standard commercial practice to not provide links sending people to your competitors, no matter what space you are in.

croon 5y ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Afoxnews.com+cnn https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Afoxnews.com+cnn https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acnn.com+foxnews https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acnn.com+foxnews I refute your supposition with extremely clear evidence that competitors have no problem mentioning each other, especially when it's in an attempt to refute something they said. So that solves the commercial aspect. The fact (no pun intended) still stands that fact-checking services are even easier to falsify since their claims are generally binary. The fact that we're having this discussion should prove that there's an abundance of interest in doing just that on the internet since we both likely have better things to do.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  You disproved my point with occasional articles showing CNN trashing Fox News (and vice versa; one still doesn't appear to link to the other, which is what I actually said): is that an example of them fact-checking each other, or is it high school-level drama? Neither of us are making any money; and, by now, nobody else is reading it.
  - croon 5y ago
    > You disproved my point with occasional articles showing CNN trashing Fox News (and vice versa; one still doesn't appear to link to the other, which is what I actually said): is that an example of them fact-checking each other, or is it high school-level drama? No, it's examples disproving your claim that they wouldn't want to drive traffic to their competitors by discussing them. Sidenote: I wouldn't call 150k hits on each website "occasional". Sidenote 2: Why is linking a relevant factor? They're discussing their competitor. Fact-checking can be done in the same way without direct linking. If linking is relevant, then your qualifier fails regardless. Since by above proof sites have no problem doing that under "trashing" conditions, there should be tons of fact-checking of fact-checkers, if they failed at their jobs, which was my original question. Why are there not mountains of these examples? Or just disprove someone else's fact check without mentioning them, or contextualize it if it's unfair, etc. I haven't even seen conflicting fact checks, is my point. This is approaching impossibility if fact-checkers are lying/biased. My conclusion as a frequent (critical) reader of them is of course that it's very rare they get it wrong. > Neither of us are making any money; and, by now, nobody else is reading it. I'm not doing this for external readers. Like I said, I'd love to be proven wrong, that's how one learns. I'll argue something logically until someone disproves it, shows a faulty assumption, etc - or my thesis still stands. The only way to strengthen your argument is to try to break it, which is what I'm doing. I assume anyone else especially on this site is doing the same thing until indicated otherwise.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

croon 5y ago

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Afoxnews.com+cnn https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Afoxnews.com+cnn https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acnn.com+foxnews https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acnn.com+foxnews I refute your supposition with extremely clear evidence that competitors have no problem mentioning each other, especially when it's in an attempt to refute something they said. So that solves the commercial aspect. The fact (no pun intended) still stands that fact-checking services are even easier to falsify since their claims are generally binary. The fact that we're having this discussion should prove that there's an abundance of interest in doing just that on the internet since we both likely have better things to do.

teachingassist 5y ago
You disproved my point with occasional articles showing CNN trashing Fox News (and vice versa; one still doesn't appear to link to the other, which is what I actually said): is that an example of them fact-checking each other, or is it high school-level drama? Neither of us are making any money; and, by now, nobody else is reading it.
- croon 5y ago
  > You disproved my point with occasional articles showing CNN trashing Fox News (and vice versa; one still doesn't appear to link to the other, which is what I actually said): is that an example of them fact-checking each other, or is it high school-level drama? No, it's examples disproving your claim that they wouldn't want to drive traffic to their competitors by discussing them. Sidenote: I wouldn't call 150k hits on each website "occasional". Sidenote 2: Why is linking a relevant factor? They're discussing their competitor. Fact-checking can be done in the same way without direct linking. If linking is relevant, then your qualifier fails regardless. Since by above proof sites have no problem doing that under "trashing" conditions, there should be tons of fact-checking of fact-checkers, if they failed at their jobs, which was my original question. Why are there not mountains of these examples? Or just disprove someone else's fact check without mentioning them, or contextualize it if it's unfair, etc. I haven't even seen conflicting fact checks, is my point. This is approaching impossibility if fact-checkers are lying/biased. My conclusion as a frequent (critical) reader of them is of course that it's very rare they get it wrong. > Neither of us are making any money; and, by now, nobody else is reading it. I'm not doing this for external readers. Like I said, I'd love to be proven wrong, that's how one learns. I'll argue something logically until someone disproves it, shows a faulty assumption, etc - or my thesis still stands. The only way to strengthen your argument is to try to break it, which is what I'm doing. I assume anyone else especially on this site is doing the same thing until indicated otherwise.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]