5 ms·

"Fact checking" is newspeak for censorship. If the Telegraph controlled the "fact checker" the Guardian wouldn't exist. If the Guardian controlled the "fact ch

by throwaway_2009 5y ago

"Fact checking" is newspeak for censorship. If the Telegraph controlled the "fact checker" the Guardian wouldn't exist. If the Guardian controlled the "fact checker", the Telegraph wouldn't exist. If you support "fact checkers", you are not welcome in my life and I will route around you. You could, perhaps, consider yourself to have been "fact checked".

Capira 5y ago
fact.
- throwaway_2009 5y ago
  [citation needed]
  - andrewclunn 5y ago
    The emergent truth inherently obvious to those with reliably observation, pattern recognition, cognitive ability is far more reliable than the knowledge preached by academic priests from within ivory towers. The rejection of "fact checking" is a rejection of the academic model of institutional knowledge in general. Science (not empiricism mind you, but "science" as a class of researchers and Phds) has been found wanting and the masses no longer trust it. TLDR, citations are for those who are incapable of making the arguments themselves and must outsource their very thought to other men they unquestioningly revere.
threatofrain 5y ago
I consider my doctor a fact checker, and I certainly wouldn't route around them just because they had the extraordinary moral audacity to check facts and not report garbage to me. The BMJ also makes decisions about what is worthy for their name, and yes, that means they "censor" people from appearing on their platform. You could say that one man's garbage is another man's treasure, but I'm not sure I would ever say that to my doctor.
- throwaway_2009 5y ago
  Your doctor is, indeed, simply a fact checker. A real one. Much as I and you, I assume, are fact checkers; we attempt to determine the veracity of information we encounter. Your doctor is not a "fact checker" in the newspeak meaning of the term, because your doctor is not preventing other people from speaking to you.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Facebook is also not preventing anyone from speaking to me; they are refraining from giving some sources a megaphone. If I want to know what the BMJ is writing, https://bmj.com https://bmj.com is right there. Facebook is under no obligation to center it on my wall.
    - standyro 5y ago
      That’s not true. Facebook actively censors certain URLs from being shared in a DM on Messenger and WhatsApp. How is that any better than the “Great Firewall of China”?
      - threatofrain 5y ago
        China bans content through government policy, and government policy carries the force of government which applies to all public and private parties. The force of government means laws, courts, police, and prison, which is typically the sole prerogative of government. HN, BMJ and Facebook pay for their expenses as private parties and may not wish use their money to help you broadcast your speech. The main difference between HN and Facebook is that Facebook is Very Big. If your idea of free speech means that either HN or Facebook must pay for a metaphorical Dang and other fancy engineers to maintain your free speech...
    - throw10920 5y ago
      "A government that censors the press is also not preventing anyone from speaking to me; they are refraining from giving some sources a megaphone." "refraining from giving some sources a megaphone" is exactly equivalent to "censorship". There's no difference. Your argument confuses the prescriptive and the descriptive. Descriptively, yes, Facebook is under no legal obligation to treat speech on its platform equally. Prescriptively, Facebook is morally obligated to either assume full responsibility for user content (both editorialization and moderation), or no responsibility (passing through legal challenges directly to the user). Additionally, as a de-facto public square, the principles of free speech still apply - a platform with more users than almost any single nation on Earth has citizens is morally bound to allow free speech.
freddybobs 5y ago
No not in general. There are facts. There are ways to make rational arguments based on those facts. Those arguments don't have to be the same, or even produce the same results to be useful - because they state their basis and how, based on that they produce their conclusions. That is a really useful and powerful thing. > If the Telegraph controlled the "fact checker" the Guardian wouldn't exist. If the Guardian controlled the "fact checker", the Telegraph wouldn't exist. Why? Having a fact checker that explains (even arguably incorrectly) why something is wrong isn't censorship. A newspaper could be a factchecker (and sometime are) - if they explain their reasoning, or have some transparent way to see their reasoning. This feels like a 'let perfect be the enemy of the good' type situation. Fact checking doesn't mean everything will be correct. It doesn't need to. Much like science doesn't claim to have the correct answer for everything - it's to the best of our knowledge based on the scientific method.
- abnry 5y ago
  It's one of those language things. Newspeak necessarily requires co-opting the good meaning of a work in order for it to work. I am doubtful OP dislikes the true meaning of fact-checking but what "fact checking" has become in this modern age.
  - chipotle_coyote 5y ago
    The problem is that there are two interpretations of "fact-checking is bad" which are not mutually exclusive: (1) "Fact-checking" is a term used by people who are not interested in facts, but just want to control a narrative. (2) Convincing the public that "fact-checking" is always done in bad faith is in the interest of people who do not want to actually be fact-checked, but rather want to control a narrative. Well, that's one problem. The other problem is that (2) has the potential to be far more pernicious: it dismisses the possibility of material difference between real fact checks and propaganda disguised as such. "Fact checkers may have their own agendas" can be true without leading us to "therefore no facts should be checked." If we choose the latter, then we have largely given up on the possibility of facts at all, and we are, not to put too fine a point on it, well and truly fucked. In the case of this BMJ article, it looks like there are reasonable questions as to whether the authors truly make a case that supports their conclusions. There's a comment from PaulDavisthe1st somewhere around here that links to both the actual article and the fact check, and it at least seems a bit more complicated than "THE BMJ IS BEING SUPPRESSED BY THE ELITES WHO DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW THE TRUTH, MAN," which is a distinct vibe I get from the comments.

Capira 5y ago

fact.

throwaway_2009 5y ago
[citation needed]
- andrewclunn 5y ago
  The emergent truth inherently obvious to those with reliably observation, pattern recognition, cognitive ability is far more reliable than the knowledge preached by academic priests from within ivory towers. The rejection of "fact checking" is a rejection of the academic model of institutional knowledge in general. Science (not empiricism mind you, but "science" as a class of researchers and Phds) has been found wanting and the masses no longer trust it. TLDR, citations are for those who are incapable of making the arguments themselves and must outsource their very thought to other men they unquestioningly revere.

threatofrain 5y ago

I consider my doctor a fact checker, and I certainly wouldn't route around them just because they had the extraordinary moral audacity to check facts and not report garbage to me. The BMJ also makes decisions about what is worthy for their name, and yes, that means they "censor" people from appearing on their platform. You could say that one man's garbage is another man's treasure, but I'm not sure I would ever say that to my doctor.

throwaway_2009 5y ago
Your doctor is, indeed, simply a fact checker. A real one. Much as I and you, I assume, are fact checkers; we attempt to determine the veracity of information we encounter. Your doctor is not a "fact checker" in the newspeak meaning of the term, because your doctor is not preventing other people from speaking to you.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Facebook is also not preventing anyone from speaking to me; they are refraining from giving some sources a megaphone. If I want to know what the BMJ is writing, https://bmj.com https://bmj.com is right there. Facebook is under no obligation to center it on my wall.
  - standyro 5y ago
    That’s not true. Facebook actively censors certain URLs from being shared in a DM on Messenger and WhatsApp. How is that any better than the “Great Firewall of China”?
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      China bans content through government policy, and government policy carries the force of government which applies to all public and private parties. The force of government means laws, courts, police, and prison, which is typically the sole prerogative of government. HN, BMJ and Facebook pay for their expenses as private parties and may not wish use their money to help you broadcast your speech. The main difference between HN and Facebook is that Facebook is Very Big. If your idea of free speech means that either HN or Facebook must pay for a metaphorical Dang and other fancy engineers to maintain your free speech...
  - throw10920 5y ago
    "A government that censors the press is also not preventing anyone from speaking to me; they are refraining from giving some sources a megaphone." "refraining from giving some sources a megaphone" is exactly equivalent to "censorship". There's no difference. Your argument confuses the prescriptive and the descriptive. Descriptively, yes, Facebook is under no legal obligation to treat speech on its platform equally. Prescriptively, Facebook is morally obligated to either assume full responsibility for user content (both editorialization and moderation), or no responsibility (passing through legal challenges directly to the user). Additionally, as a de-facto public square, the principles of free speech still apply - a platform with more users than almost any single nation on Earth has citizens is morally bound to allow free speech.

freddybobs 5y ago

No not in general. There are facts. There are ways to make rational arguments based on those facts. Those arguments don't have to be the same, or even produce the same results to be useful - because they state their basis and how, based on that they produce their conclusions. That is a really useful and powerful thing. > If the Telegraph controlled the "fact checker" the Guardian wouldn't exist. If the Guardian controlled the "fact checker", the Telegraph wouldn't exist. Why? Having a fact checker that explains (even arguably incorrectly) why something is wrong isn't censorship. A newspaper could be a factchecker (and sometime are) - if they explain their reasoning, or have some transparent way to see their reasoning. This feels like a 'let perfect be the enemy of the good' type situation. Fact checking doesn't mean everything will be correct. It doesn't need to. Much like science doesn't claim to have the correct answer for everything - it's to the best of our knowledge based on the scientific method.

abnry 5y ago
It's one of those language things. Newspeak necessarily requires co-opting the good meaning of a work in order for it to work. I am doubtful OP dislikes the true meaning of fact-checking but what "fact checking" has become in this modern age.
- chipotle_coyote 5y ago
  The problem is that there are two interpretations of "fact-checking is bad" which are not mutually exclusive: (1) "Fact-checking" is a term used by people who are not interested in facts, but just want to control a narrative. (2) Convincing the public that "fact-checking" is always done in bad faith is in the interest of people who do not want to actually be fact-checked, but rather want to control a narrative. Well, that's one problem. The other problem is that (2) has the potential to be far more pernicious: it dismisses the possibility of material difference between real fact checks and propaganda disguised as such. "Fact checkers may have their own agendas" can be true without leading us to "therefore no facts should be checked." If we choose the latter, then we have largely given up on the possibility of facts at all, and we are, not to put too fine a point on it, well and truly fucked. In the case of this BMJ article, it looks like there are reasonable questions as to whether the authors truly make a case that supports their conclusions. There's a comment from PaulDavisthe1st somewhere around here that links to both the actual article and the fact check, and it at least seems a bit more complicated than "THE BMJ IS BEING SUPPRESSED BY THE ELITES WHO DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW THE TRUTH, MAN," which is a distinct vibe I get from the comments.