4 ms·

They're definitely not perfect, and they will be ineffective at times. But there is a need for sources of factual information, so it is a worthwhile objective.

They're definitely not perfect, and they will be ineffective at times. But there is a need for sources of factual information, so it is a worthwhile objective. And, I think there is a lot of usage for fact checks, wherein reasonable people who are not tribalists just want to sort through competing information. And remember, fact checks also include removal of disinformation (i.e. not just leaving in place and providing commentary). So at a minimum fact checks can slow the propagation of disinformation by simply making it unavailable.

luckylion 5y ago
> reasonable people who are not tribalists just want to sort through competing information Hmm, maybe. I've always assumed that you go to reddit, twitter or facebook with your mind made up and a need for validation or the wish to tell everyone -- it's social media after all, not news media, and you'd go some news site to get your fix, or to Wikipedia if you want to learn about some topic de jour. The removal of (dis-)information is what I'm least comfortable with. We've pretty much always called it misinformation when we censored something, but it hasn't always stood up to the test of time. I have to admit however, that I've never personally come across a fact-checked link, so I don't have a good intuition where most of it is between "ban that opinion, I don't like it" and "this is insane and they have pitchforks, we better shut this down".
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >I've always assumed that you go to reddit, twitter or facebook with your mind made up Well, that definitely happens, and maybe I'm thinking more of independent fact-checking sites like Snopes, where people visit explicitly to verify the veracity of something. >The removal of (dis-)information is what I'm least comfortable with I understand, but, unfortunately, we have an absolute explosion of explicit disinformation. The funny thing is that the notion of being uncomfortable with removing disinformation is itself partly the product of the idea that there are no objective facts. And, that is a function of how successful the firehose of disinfo has been at attacking the value of truth and the existence of objectivity. So, we kind of conflate removing disinfo with undertaking a subjective political act. But, not long ago, it wasn't so easy to argue base reality.
  - luckylion 5y ago
    I don't believe that there are no objective facts, but I do believe that we're generally pretty bad at observing objective reality and once we get above some level of complexity, "facts" isn't a good term. I don't think you need an attack on the value of truth and the existence of objectivity to have issues with "truths" about complex systems. We've had plenty of truths about the economy, and we've corrected them lots of times as well. If anyone asked you to fact-check some claim about the effects of raising the minimum wage to $25/hr, what objective truth do you look to? Do you ask 20 economists what their gut feeling is and say "that's it then"? Do you just reject the question?
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      Largely true, but I think it's a matter of degree. That is, the set of facts that society generally agreed upon was once much larger and less tribally-driven. I think your example about the economy is perhaps not well-fitted to the argument I'm making. We've always allowed for the interpretation of facts in certain fields or areas of society. So, areas of subjectivity are well circumscribed and expected. Thus, for instance, it is well-known and accepted that people will offer different opinions on the impact of raising the minimum wage. And it is known that the answer depends on a complex set of variables that can earnestly be interpreted differently. I think this is qualitatively different from, say, suggesting that a person did or did not say something or that an event did or did not occur, or even offering up something like Qanon with no evidence. This latter paragraph is what I would describe as comprising objective facts/reality. And, that's what's changed most dramatically.
      - luckylion 5y ago
        If I understand you correctly, you'd apply the fact-checking to very obvious issues ("The president is a reptile", "X has said Y", though I guess that gets fuzzy quickly unless you're limiting yourself to quote-checking), but not "mostly opinion based" things? Would the case of this article fall in the "needs fact-checking" basket or the "mostly opinion based"? I agree about society being less split at some point. My pet theory is 1) lack of leisure time to find out, b) needing more cooperation to make things work, enforcing more homogeneity c) no social media/forums to question the official view at scale.

luckylion 5y ago

> reasonable people who are not tribalists just want to sort through competing information Hmm, maybe. I've always assumed that you go to reddit, twitter or facebook with your mind made up and a need for validation or the wish to tell everyone -- it's social media after all, not news media, and you'd go some news site to get your fix, or to Wikipedia if you want to learn about some topic de jour. The removal of (dis-)information is what I'm least comfortable with. We've pretty much always called it misinformation when we censored something, but it hasn't always stood up to the test of time. I have to admit however, that I've never personally come across a fact-checked link, so I don't have a good intuition where most of it is between "ban that opinion, I don't like it" and "this is insane and they have pitchforks, we better shut this down".

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>I've always assumed that you go to reddit, twitter or facebook with your mind made up Well, that definitely happens, and maybe I'm thinking more of independent fact-checking sites like Snopes, where people visit explicitly to verify the veracity of something. >The removal of (dis-)information is what I'm least comfortable with I understand, but, unfortunately, we have an absolute explosion of explicit disinformation. The funny thing is that the notion of being uncomfortable with removing disinformation is itself partly the product of the idea that there are no objective facts. And, that is a function of how successful the firehose of disinfo has been at attacking the value of truth and the existence of objectivity. So, we kind of conflate removing disinfo with undertaking a subjective political act. But, not long ago, it wasn't so easy to argue base reality.
- luckylion 5y ago
  I don't believe that there are no objective facts, but I do believe that we're generally pretty bad at observing objective reality and once we get above some level of complexity, "facts" isn't a good term. I don't think you need an attack on the value of truth and the existence of objectivity to have issues with "truths" about complex systems. We've had plenty of truths about the economy, and we've corrected them lots of times as well. If anyone asked you to fact-check some claim about the effects of raising the minimum wage to $25/hr, what objective truth do you look to? Do you ask 20 economists what their gut feeling is and say "that's it then"? Do you just reject the question?
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    Largely true, but I think it's a matter of degree. That is, the set of facts that society generally agreed upon was once much larger and less tribally-driven. I think your example about the economy is perhaps not well-fitted to the argument I'm making. We've always allowed for the interpretation of facts in certain fields or areas of society. So, areas of subjectivity are well circumscribed and expected. Thus, for instance, it is well-known and accepted that people will offer different opinions on the impact of raising the minimum wage. And it is known that the answer depends on a complex set of variables that can earnestly be interpreted differently. I think this is qualitatively different from, say, suggesting that a person did or did not say something or that an event did or did not occur, or even offering up something like Qanon with no evidence. This latter paragraph is what I would describe as comprising objective facts/reality. And, that's what's changed most dramatically.
    - luckylion 5y ago
      If I understand you correctly, you'd apply the fact-checking to very obvious issues ("The president is a reptile", "X has said Y", though I guess that gets fuzzy quickly unless you're limiting yourself to quote-checking), but not "mostly opinion based" things? Would the case of this article fall in the "needs fact-checking" basket or the "mostly opinion based"? I agree about society being less split at some point. My pet theory is 1) lack of leisure time to find out, b) needing more cooperation to make things work, enforcing more homogeneity c) no social media/forums to question the official view at scale.