8 ms·

Relatedly, PolitiFact has partnered up with Facebook to “combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed”. They’ve recently flagged a video that used an o

Relatedly, PolitiFact has partnered up with Facebook to “combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed”. They’ve recently flagged a video that used an online dictionary definition of “recession”: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/27/instagram-posts/no-white-house-didnt-change-definition-recession/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/27/instagram-... Whether or not the U.S. is actually in a recession might still be up for debate. But I’d argue that it’s pretty clear what’s happening to the credibility of online “fact-checking” sources.

rvz 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Can someone explain me what is so horrible about country being in recession? They do happen regularly and are normal part of our modern economy. Wouldn't it be just better to accept the situation and present solutions for moving forward?
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    The party in power (happens to be Democrats right now) tends to get re-elected when there is not a recession and tends not to when there is. It’s politically bad for an incumbent party to have a recession, but otherwise perfectly normal, natural, and even healthy for the economy to usually grow but sometimes contract. I have to laugh a bit as I think “maybe I won’t get wet as long as the weather reporter doesn’t declare it’s a rainstorm…”
    - jokethrowaway 4y ago
      I think it's more interesting to understand why recession happen and why are we condemned to an eternal cycle of boom and bust and growing inequality between the top 0.1% and the rest. I blame governments messing with currencies and with markets. Not that I believe one party or another will fix things, the theft from the elite is bound to grow bigger and bigger (like our spending) until a soviet union style collapse and a return to poverty and free market capitalism.
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      A big critism of Democrat policy is that it would cause a recession, so it is particularly bad for them to go into a election while they are in power and one has started.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        If that’s the case, they’re in for a bad mid-term as I can’t see any reasonable way of torturing the data to get it to confess to continued real economic growth through 2022. In that regard, they might be better off to “get it over with”, take a beating in the mid-terms, and hope to salvage the 2024 election. (I say this as no fan of either major party.)
  - tenpies 4y ago
- shapefrog 4y ago
  They didnt change anything now - the NBER definition is unchanged, and the "online dictionary" continues to use generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters. Your aunt on facebook who knows someone on the inside is full of shit.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    I'm not clear on the Aunt reference but to my understanding the White House spokesperson and economic advisers have (very recently - last week or so) gone on record saying that 2 successive quarters is not and never has been the definition of a recession.
    - shapefrog 4y ago
      That would be because 2 successive quarters is not and never has been the definition of a recession in the US. A recession in the US is defined as when the NBER says it as a recession. > The NBER's traditional definition of a recession is that it is a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and that lasts more than a few months. The committee's view is that while each of the three criteria—depth, diffusion, and duration—needs to be met individually to some degree, extreme conditions revealed by one criterion may partially offset weaker indications from another ... Despite your claim to the contraty, the NBER guidence of what they believe constitutes a recession did not change "recently".
      - CapricornNoble 4y ago
        >>>That would be because 2 successive quarters is not and never has been the definition of a recession. Perhaps explain that to the White House's own economic advisors, then? https://twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1552365720721399817 https://twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1552365720721399817
        lukas099 4y ago
        People say things, that doesn't change how the US officially defines a recession.
- jeegsy 4y ago
  Thank you for actually addressing the matter at hand. I was looking for this in the comments. The question is why are we using a different standard from what we have been using, at least in popular understanding not philosophical musings about what is and isn't a recession or whether its good or natural.
d3nj4l 4y ago
What does your link have to do with what you're saying?
- mypastself 4y ago
  The video in question uses a different (dictionary) definition of the term from the authors of the article. This is partly the justification for them declaring the video as false, and flagging it as potentially harmful misinformation. The overreaction alone is sufficient for me to question the website’s priorities.
  - mjburgess 4y ago
    The issue with the video, as explained in your article link, is its claim that the whitehouse is "changing the definition" of recession. That claim is false, and just propaganda. The WH may be using an official definition which is convenient for them, vs. some other that is also acceptable. That may be true. But they arent changing the definition of anything. Theyre actually using the standard one for the relevant area of expertise.
    - glenstein 4y ago
      >The issue with the video, as explained in your article link, is its claim that the whitehouse is "changing the definition" of recession. Thank you for taking the time to look at this, as the commenter had led me to believe PolitiFact was arguing about a totally different claim.
    - mypastself 4y ago
      I’m not defending the specific claim in question. I’m questioning why these websites tend to focus on addressing the most easily debunkable, literal aspects (or versions) of an argument, usually in favor of a particular political option. If there’s an article out there in which PolitiFact debunked (let alone flagged) claims of, say, “transitory inflation”, I’ll stand corrected.
      - 4y ago
mellosouls 4y ago
Unfortunately, there is no real objective agreement on Politifact's impartiality either. Impartiality generally seems to be a very difficult subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact#Allegations_of_political_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact#Allegations_of_poli... PolitiFact was three times as likely to rank statements from Republicans as “Pants on Fire,” and twice as likely to rank statements from Democrats as “Entirely True.”
- hobs 4y ago
  Nothing you said here or Wikipedia says demonstrates Politifact is wrong, just that they find Republicans lie more. That's not a point of bias unless you can prove Republicans lie less.
  - hbossy 4y ago
    It's more reasonable to assume that all politicians lie the same and "fact checkers" are biased against one party.
    - bildung 4y ago
      Why would you think that? It's clear that different political parties are driven by different value systems (more obviously in other countries than the US, but still), thus also quite plausable that those value systems differ in their judgement of the end justifying the means.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      That would probably your a priori assumption since that would be your motivation to do the study in the first place. But it's not some fundamental law of the universe, so you can't just count lies/total grouped by party and conclude bias. You have to prove that for the same claims politifact would rate Republican's worse and Democrats better or establish some kind of control. Because it's not necessarily either bais or that Republicans lie more, it could also be that politifact is asked to rate statements that are obvious lies by Republicans more often.
geraldwhen 4y ago
Fact checking has never been credible. You’re just now noticing.
- selfhoster11 4y ago
  It would help people to notice that if it wasn't literally branding itself as the way to establish that information is credible.
lukas099 4y ago
Your post is technically true but misleading. They did flag a video that used an online dictionary definition of "recession." However, they didn't flag it for its definition. They flagged it for stating that the White House had changed its definition when it hadn't.
- mypastself 4y ago
  They actually argue against two claims in the article, one of which is the correct definition of the term. Immediately after quoting the definition used by the video, the article states that they’ve flagged the video, which to me indicates it was an important part of why they flagged it. I do concede I should have been clearer in my original comment.
  - lukas099 4y ago
    The NBER's definition and Siri's definition are not even in conflict. As PolitiFact states: > [T]he definition read by Siri [...] includes an important word that the narrator glosses over, namely "generally." In other words, the one-sentence definition Siri provided is not a closed answer. It’s a general guidance that includes exceptions. PolitiFact does discuss why the NBER definition is more nuanced than the 2-quarter heuristic, but this is mere exposition behind their main point.
secondhandle 4y ago
Huh? First 5 seconds of the video: "So the White House is now trying to protect Joe Biden by changing the definition of the word recession" Content of the video: Uses siri's definition which states a recession is "...generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters." The poster ignores the 'generally' when comparing to the White House website which states that the two quarter definition is not official. Followed by a rap battle meme. Obvious intent of video: Paints a narrative that the white house is changing definitions of words to fit their needs. Title of the politifact article: "No, the White House didn’t change the definition of “recession” " Content of the politifact article: The white house didn't change the definition of recession. Reality: The White House didn't change the definition of recession. So what exactly is the credibility issue here?

rvz 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Ekaros 4y ago
Can someone explain me what is so horrible about country being in recession? They do happen regularly and are normal part of our modern economy. Wouldn't it be just better to accept the situation and present solutions for moving forward?
- sokoloff 4y ago
  The party in power (happens to be Democrats right now) tends to get re-elected when there is not a recession and tends not to when there is. It’s politically bad for an incumbent party to have a recession, but otherwise perfectly normal, natural, and even healthy for the economy to usually grow but sometimes contract. I have to laugh a bit as I think “maybe I won’t get wet as long as the weather reporter doesn’t declare it’s a rainstorm…”
  - jokethrowaway 4y ago
    I think it's more interesting to understand why recession happen and why are we condemned to an eternal cycle of boom and bust and growing inequality between the top 0.1% and the rest. I blame governments messing with currencies and with markets. Not that I believe one party or another will fix things, the theft from the elite is bound to grow bigger and bigger (like our spending) until a soviet union style collapse and a return to poverty and free market capitalism.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    A big critism of Democrat policy is that it would cause a recession, so it is particularly bad for them to go into a election while they are in power and one has started.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      If that’s the case, they’re in for a bad mid-term as I can’t see any reasonable way of torturing the data to get it to confess to continued real economic growth through 2022. In that regard, they might be better off to “get it over with”, take a beating in the mid-terms, and hope to salvage the 2024 election. (I say this as no fan of either major party.)
- tenpies 4y ago
shapefrog 4y ago
They didnt change anything now - the NBER definition is unchanged, and the "online dictionary" continues to use generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters. Your aunt on facebook who knows someone on the inside is full of shit.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  I'm not clear on the Aunt reference but to my understanding the White House spokesperson and economic advisers have (very recently - last week or so) gone on record saying that 2 successive quarters is not and never has been the definition of a recession.
  - shapefrog 4y ago
    That would be because 2 successive quarters is not and never has been the definition of a recession in the US. A recession in the US is defined as when the NBER says it as a recession. > The NBER's traditional definition of a recession is that it is a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and that lasts more than a few months. The committee's view is that while each of the three criteria—depth, diffusion, and duration—needs to be met individually to some degree, extreme conditions revealed by one criterion may partially offset weaker indications from another ... Despite your claim to the contraty, the NBER guidence of what they believe constitutes a recession did not change "recently".
    - CapricornNoble 4y ago
      >>>That would be because 2 successive quarters is not and never has been the definition of a recession. Perhaps explain that to the White House's own economic advisors, then? https://twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1552365720721399817 https://twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1552365720721399817
      - lukas099 4y ago
        People say things, that doesn't change how the US officially defines a recession.
jeegsy 4y ago
Thank you for actually addressing the matter at hand. I was looking for this in the comments. The question is why are we using a different standard from what we have been using, at least in popular understanding not philosophical musings about what is and isn't a recession or whether its good or natural.

d3nj4l 4y ago

What does your link have to do with what you're saying?

mypastself 4y ago
The video in question uses a different (dictionary) definition of the term from the authors of the article. This is partly the justification for them declaring the video as false, and flagging it as potentially harmful misinformation. The overreaction alone is sufficient for me to question the website’s priorities.
- mjburgess 4y ago
  The issue with the video, as explained in your article link, is its claim that the whitehouse is "changing the definition" of recession. That claim is false, and just propaganda. The WH may be using an official definition which is convenient for them, vs. some other that is also acceptable. That may be true. But they arent changing the definition of anything. Theyre actually using the standard one for the relevant area of expertise.
  - glenstein 4y ago
    >The issue with the video, as explained in your article link, is its claim that the whitehouse is "changing the definition" of recession. Thank you for taking the time to look at this, as the commenter had led me to believe PolitiFact was arguing about a totally different claim.
  - mypastself 4y ago
    I’m not defending the specific claim in question. I’m questioning why these websites tend to focus on addressing the most easily debunkable, literal aspects (or versions) of an argument, usually in favor of a particular political option. If there’s an article out there in which PolitiFact debunked (let alone flagged) claims of, say, “transitory inflation”, I’ll stand corrected.
    - 4y ago

mellosouls 4y ago

Unfortunately, there is no real objective agreement on Politifact's impartiality either. Impartiality generally seems to be a very difficult subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact#Allegations_of_political_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact#Allegations_of_poli... PolitiFact was three times as likely to rank statements from Republicans as “Pants on Fire,” and twice as likely to rank statements from Democrats as “Entirely True.”

hobs 4y ago
Nothing you said here or Wikipedia says demonstrates Politifact is wrong, just that they find Republicans lie more. That's not a point of bias unless you can prove Republicans lie less.
- hbossy 4y ago
  It's more reasonable to assume that all politicians lie the same and "fact checkers" are biased against one party.
  - bildung 4y ago
    Why would you think that? It's clear that different political parties are driven by different value systems (more obviously in other countries than the US, but still), thus also quite plausable that those value systems differ in their judgement of the end justifying the means.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    That would probably your a priori assumption since that would be your motivation to do the study in the first place. But it's not some fundamental law of the universe, so you can't just count lies/total grouped by party and conclude bias. You have to prove that for the same claims politifact would rate Republican's worse and Democrats better or establish some kind of control. Because it's not necessarily either bais or that Republicans lie more, it could also be that politifact is asked to rate statements that are obvious lies by Republicans more often.

geraldwhen 4y ago

Fact checking has never been credible. You’re just now noticing.

selfhoster11 4y ago
It would help people to notice that if it wasn't literally branding itself as the way to establish that information is credible.

lukas099 4y ago

Your post is technically true but misleading. They did flag a video that used an online dictionary definition of "recession." However, they didn't flag it for its definition. They flagged it for stating that the White House had changed its definition when it hadn't.

mypastself 4y ago
They actually argue against two claims in the article, one of which is the correct definition of the term. Immediately after quoting the definition used by the video, the article states that they’ve flagged the video, which to me indicates it was an important part of why they flagged it. I do concede I should have been clearer in my original comment.
- lukas099 4y ago
  The NBER's definition and Siri's definition are not even in conflict. As PolitiFact states: > [T]he definition read by Siri [...] includes an important word that the narrator glosses over, namely "generally." In other words, the one-sentence definition Siri provided is not a closed answer. It’s a general guidance that includes exceptions. PolitiFact does discuss why the NBER definition is more nuanced than the 2-quarter heuristic, but this is mere exposition behind their main point.

secondhandle 4y ago

Huh? First 5 seconds of the video: "So the White House is now trying to protect Joe Biden by changing the definition of the word recession" Content of the video: Uses siri's definition which states a recession is "...generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters." The poster ignores the 'generally' when comparing to the White House website which states that the two quarter definition is not official. Followed by a rap battle meme. Obvious intent of video: Paints a narrative that the white house is changing definitions of words to fit their needs. Title of the politifact article: "No, the White House didn’t change the definition of “recession” " Content of the politifact article: The white house didn't change the definition of recession. Reality: The White House didn't change the definition of recession. So what exactly is the credibility issue here?