6 ms·
Really admire your work man. I honestly felt nothing but contempt for the oligarchic structure of fact checking. Facebook hired organisations like the Washing
by faeriechangling 4y ago
Really admire your work man.
I honestly felt nothing but contempt for the oligarchic structure of fact checking. Facebook hired organisations like the Washington Post to do their fact checking. I have not forgotten how many people there lies killed in Iraq. I don't forget how the journalists at the time were willing to compromise their ethics in exchange for White House access and exclusive stories from the front lines, simply because journalistic interest is not the public interest. We also saw more recently during the pandemic incompetent journalists without adequate medical training censoring BMJ articles from Facebook: https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95 https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95.
You are making one of the only tools I can see that can possibly make "fact-checking" a reality in a nominally unbias way that can be broadly accepted by the public. A democratic fact-checking system for a largely democratic website. Even if birdwatch will get things wrong, I appreciate the effort to reform this institution of "fact-checking" with something righteous and moral. No need to touch on my spicy political views, but I think this is a transparent, scalable, fair tool that can truly be embraced by the entire society rather than simply leading to a partisan divide.
Your system understands I'm on social media because I want to hear what the average person has to say, and I would go to a news website if I wanted to get a news websites take on what the facts were. To me, if a news website wants people on twitter or Facebook to pay attention to their "fact check" editorial, they should do it the same way everybody else has to. By creating compelling writing that gets attention and that people agree with.
- throwawaycdf 4y agoIronically their site tagline is "democracy dies in darkness"
- SanjayMehta 4y agoThe Guardian's comment section was called "Comment is Free," but was heavily moderated.
- jen20 4y agoGratis vs Libre, perhaps. It’s a shame English is so stunted in this regard.
- rossjudson 4y agoWas there a specific instance you can point out where the Post got its facts wrong, and didn't correct it?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- throwqwwy123 4y ago
- IIAOPSW 4y agoWas there a specific instance you can point out where the Post got its facts wrong, and didn't correct it?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- throwqwwy123 4y agoAn org thats concerned about democracy should not let ads which lie and opinion pieces without fact checking not allowed. That's what I expect but You may have diff standards
- happymellon 4y agoWas there a specific instance you can point out where the Post got its facts wrong, and didn't correct it?
- snehk 4y agoYes, they printed the lies about WMDs and put out loads and loads of articles in support of the war.
- 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- fuckyah 4y agoNow do vaccines
- registeredcorn 4y agoI'd be interested to hear your opinion: Do you think there is a risk to "fact checking" gives the public a false sense of knowledge, and reduces certain important skills? It seems apparent to me that, in the process of a manual substation of truth, through whatever means of research an individual chooses to check the validity of a subject, they accidentally learn more during the task of that research verification both directly through the claim that was made, and as well in that field in a more general sense. For example: if two users are arguing over a Bible verse, and one side wishes to verify the claim the other side made, the traditional method would mean anything from reading a Wikipedia entry and a few related sources, to a book on the subject, to some other means. During the search for the specific thing they were after, they would also learn about: the general historical context of that period, other related verses, events of a similar nature throughout history, cultural peculiarities, linguistical differences, etc. On the other hand, if "fact checking" is simply a thing done on a persons behalf, not only is the accuracy of the check a concern, but the act will not encourage learning about that related context. The recipient will not have a reason to learn of those other things, and might never learn or maintain that valuable skill of research and verification.
- Aleksdev 4y agoI think there is nothing wrong with fact checking the problem is that the fact checking that is being done often has a bias. One example that comes to mind was the Hunter Biden laptop that was dismissed as Russian propaganda by the fact checks. Turned out it was completely true.
- Forgeties79 4y ago>turns out it was completely true Depends on what you mean by “completely true.” For instance, I heard all kinds of wild/absurd accusations like he had child porn all over it. If that were “completely true,” he’d be in cuffs. You need to give more context here.
- Aleksdev 4y agoSure, let me be clearer. The media said the laptop and the videos were Russian misinformation. Turns out that was his laptop and that was him in those videos.