4 ms·
This is obviously true, a very simple example is the following piece of news: "the most recent vote of the US Senate was 50-48", which not only requires you to
by qsort 5y ago
This is obviously true, a very simple example is the following piece of news: "the most recent vote of the US Senate was 50-48", which not only requires you to look up the actual number, but is also time-dependent.
However, the common usage of "fake news" is not only literally "news that is not true", but rather "news that is deliberately not true in a very specific way".
Many object to the usage of the term itself, and honestly I myself agree that it's not the best way to describe the phenomenon, but it's something that exists regardless of how you choose to call it. I can see the research being useful, I wouldn't say "garbage in, garbage out" really applies here.
- sigotirandolas 5y agoI guess you could say that "fake news" is "not true" + "propaganda/flamebait/viral style". In my opinion this article focuses on the later but not on the former, while using the word for the combination (oh the irony). Though in that sense I agree that it's not completely useless, as it may be good to strip or standardize the propaganda/virality aspect so one is forced to actually look at the facts.
- JI00912 5y agoWell the detection algorithm for that would simply be a function that always returns `true`. There might be a small percentage of false positives, but pretty much negligable.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jhgb 5y ago> However, the common usage of "fake news" is not only literally "news that is not true", but rather "news that is deliberately not true in a very specific way". The word "fake" surely doesn't have a connotation of an honest mistake, does it? That's not just "common usage", it's the only one I'm aware of.