3 ms·

Huh, one can fill pages of this. How ‘fact-checking’ can be used as censorship https://www.ft.com/content/69e43380-dd6d-4240-b5e1-47fc1f2f0bdc https://www.ft.c

Huh, one can fill pages of this. How ‘fact-checking’ can be used as censorship https://www.ft.com/content/69e43380-dd6d-4240-b5e1-47fc1f2f0bdc https://www.ft.com/content/69e43380-dd6d-4240-b5e1-47fc1f2f0... - covers how Trump's vaccine prediction was 'fact-checked' as false, how the Wuhan leak report was 'fact-checked' and also heavily censored as false, how the reports of Biden's memory boopers were 'fact-checked' as false. Many of these issues were already discussed on HN. Anyone could dig up dozens of such cases with a bit of searching... https://crowkingblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/quick-example-of-bad-fact-checking/ https://crowkingblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/quick-example-... https://investortimes.com/freedomoutpost/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-snopes-politifact-said-im-a-big-fat-liar-but-lets-look-at-their-facts/ https://investortimes.com/freedomoutpost/fact-checking-the-f...

Permit 5y ago
This article is a very good demonstration of the problem with fact checking, thanks for sharing. > Many of these issues were already discussed on HN. Anyone could dig up dozens of such cases with a bit of searching... I imagine I could find more if I wanted to as well, but it probably kicks off a more interesting discussion if we focus on real examples instead of imagined hypotheticals. I was just trying to drive the discussion in that direction.
- lenkite 5y ago
  Personally, I think its fine if so-called "fact checkers" exist as long as their fact-checking isn't used to flag and censor people.
teh64 5y ago
crowkingblog problems: 1. no link to the actual snopes article, which is this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nbc-vaughn/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nbc-vaughn/ 2. the link "debunking" that the video was edited on the website is hard to confirm, because it is no longer online, and on archive.org it requires a flash player. But at least in the text version (https://web.archive.org/web/20160807110939/http://www.today.com/id/44056945/ns/today-today_people/t/navy-seals-widow-we-were-blessed-be-together https://web.archive.org/web/20160807110939/http://www.today....), there is the reference to christ. investortimes: I think this is a weird semantic argument. Yes, there are fines that need to be paid by water management companies if they do not reduce the amount of water per capita each person uses, and I think investortimes is correct in saying that the cost will probably be somehow passed on to consumers. But that is still not the same thing as saying how it is illegal. The prices will just go up a lot more, and I imagine some kind of usage based pricing will come into effect to make sure the goals are reached. But calling that illegal is like saying it is illegal to run a mining rig in your home because you will be charged a lot for electricity and a power company might force you to reduce the amount of power you are using. So I believe mostly false is still correct. also inb4 tldr

Permit 5y ago

This article is a very good demonstration of the problem with fact checking, thanks for sharing. > Many of these issues were already discussed on HN. Anyone could dig up dozens of such cases with a bit of searching... I imagine I could find more if I wanted to as well, but it probably kicks off a more interesting discussion if we focus on real examples instead of imagined hypotheticals. I was just trying to drive the discussion in that direction.

lenkite 5y ago
Personally, I think its fine if so-called "fact checkers" exist as long as their fact-checking isn't used to flag and censor people.

teh64 5y ago

crowkingblog problems: 1. no link to the actual snopes article, which is this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nbc-vaughn/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nbc-vaughn/ 2. the link "debunking" that the video was edited on the website is hard to confirm, because it is no longer online, and on archive.org it requires a flash player. But at least in the text version (https://web.archive.org/web/20160807110939/http://www.today.com/id/44056945/ns/today-today_people/t/navy-seals-widow-we-were-blessed-be-together https://web.archive.org/web/20160807110939/http://www.today....), there is the reference to christ. investortimes: I think this is a weird semantic argument. Yes, there are fines that need to be paid by water management companies if they do not reduce the amount of water per capita each person uses, and I think investortimes is correct in saying that the cost will probably be somehow passed on to consumers. But that is still not the same thing as saying how it is illegal. The prices will just go up a lot more, and I imagine some kind of usage based pricing will come into effect to make sure the goals are reached. But calling that illegal is like saying it is illegal to run a mining rig in your home because you will be charged a lot for electricity and a power company might force you to reduce the amount of power you are using. So I believe mostly false is still correct. also inb4 tldr