9 ms·

The very notion of fact-checked seems deeply politicised these days and instantly raises my suspicions about the agenda of the checker. It's not like the old da

by hanoz 4y ago

The very notion of fact-checked seems deeply politicised these days and instantly raises my suspicions about the agenda of the checker. It's not like the old days of Snopes categorising memes and urban legends, but more often than not some vested interest out to rubbish dissent.

raffraffraff 4y ago
Snopes isn't even trustworthy anymore. Reddit? Ideologically slanted. It's not so much moderated as outright censored. You don't notice it most of the time, but on certain topics only one perspective is allowed. It's not just on some subs, it's the platform.
n0tth3dro1ds 4y ago
[dead]
ggm 4y ago
That in itself, is but an opinion. You didn't hide it was an opinion, but that is in the end, all it is. I on the other hand, have another opinion. It is often important to have people who have contextual knowledge stand up and say "that input claiming to be fact is in fact (hah) rubbish" and the politicisation here, is because a very specific arc of engagement is CONSCIOUSLY intruding "fake news" as a tactical approach to dealing with it's concerns. That it overwhelmingly becomes labelled as a left-right or big-oil/green split, or Russia/Everyone-else or Trump/Biden.. is also something to reflect on. Exxon (as an example) had material facts to hand, in the 1970s regarding the future impact of CO2 and they made a decision (however informally or not) to surpress those facts, and participate in greenwashing messages, despite the consequences. Now, we could dive into a debate of the form "thats a lie! thats fake news" or not. I don't much care. In context, I think it informs the quality of the question "is fact checking important" and "is it political" and "is it just about rubbishing dissent" I think it is important. I think it is very political. I do not think it is just about rubbishing dissent.
- jay_kyburz 4y ago
  My startup idea, that if often laughed out of the room, it to develop a news site that separates events from the commentary on those events. On the left hand side of the page is a list of "testimony" of events. Who said what happened and when, along with any supporting evidence such as photos or video. (Without a journalist interpreting or crafting a story) On the right hand side of the page is commentary from interesting folks from both the left and right. (Pulling together the testimony, looking for insight, greater meaning, or identifying trends. )
  - ggm 4y ago
    It's a nice idea, noting modern cohorts would include denials of the factuality.
fzeroracer 4y ago
People always focus on the agenda of the 'fact-checker' in these arguments, but never seem to focus on the agenda of the 'fact-checked'. This isn't to say that said fact checkers are always correct because people can always double back and issue a counter argument, but rather that it's easy for people to just post nonsense and run, leaving it to fester if uncontested. For example, there's been multiple incidents of that here on HN where people post something that's incorrect by all definitions. It statistically does not align with reality. The best way to counter the deluge of low effort, low accuracy claims is with a medium-effort, medium-accuracy source. Usually in these cases the poster simply vanishes because they did not intend to actually follow up a factual counterclaim.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >The best way to counter the deluge of low effort, low accuracy claims is with a medium-effort, medium-accuracy source. That's not an effective counter at least as far as my observation goes. These jerks win not by backing up their asinine claims with sources. They win by diverting everyone else's energy away from debating their asinine claims to making the debate one of sources. Heck, a good chunk of the time they do it you don't even need to find other sources because they're just using junk journalism where the title says A but the article says B. If being "proven wrong" was actually detrimental to their causes they would modify their behavior. I'm sure one of our resident link-spewers will be along shortly to disagree with me and then edit his comment five times adding subsequent links to garbage that nominally back up his assertion...
- dylan604 4y ago
  > The best way to counter the deluge of low effort, low accuracy claims is with a medium-effort, medium-accuracy source. except we now live in a world with phrases like alternative facts. if someone doesn't want to believe in something because it does not align with their ideals, then you will not be able to convince them regardless of how incontrovertible your facts may be. sure, the more "solid" the fact, the more bizarre the counter is, but there will always be a counter.
  - ricardobeat 4y ago
drewrv 4y ago
The reason "fact-checked" seems political is because there is a movement among the American right to discredit any job that involves seeking or explaining the truth. I may come across as hyperbolic but I'm serious: name a job where you try to sort out what's true and what isn't, and American right-wing trolls will accuse it of bias. Scientist? Journalist? Professor? Librarian? Doctor? It was only a matter of time before "fact-checker" got the same treatment as these other people. None of these people or careers are beyond reproach, but there is a difference between good-faith attempts at finding the truth and bad-faith accusations of bias.
- vintermann 4y ago
  I've been a supporter of Wikileaks for many years, and I think that the idea that attacking journalists for publishing evidence is a uniquely Republican thing is disproved by what I've seen. Most of which you won't have seen, of course. One of the fact checkers given a prominent position on the front page of Google News is polygraph.info. Polygraph.info is run by Voice of America, official propaganda organ of the US, which was until a few years forbidden by law from targeting US citizens. Now I ask you: do you think it was for reasons of popular pressure, or maybe market forces, that Voice of America became a featured fact-checker for Google News? Also, do you think I could get them to fact check claims like, "The CIA considered concrete plans to assassinate Julian Assange"? You think that would ever happen, that they honestly promoted a little known fact which was deeply embarrassing to the US government? I find no good faith there. Maybe they have the luxury of less actual lying, because as a hegemonic propagandists, they can just stonewall when someone asks them an awkward question. Pretend they didn't hear it, because no one will report it. Underdog propagandists like RT don't have that luxury, so it's more efficient to conjure up a shitstorm of mutually incompatible lies for them. But their role is the same.
- raffraffraff 4y ago
  The American right don't have the monopoly on discrediting facts or fact checkers. The left are absolutely up to their necks in it too, both in America and abroad.
- brailsafe 4y ago
  Seems like a both sides sort of thing to me, especially with Twitter stuff coming out
nonethewiser 4y ago
> The very notion of fact-checked seems deeply politicised these days It's deeply politicized by nature. Fact checking is just spinning a narrative. You cant nor should not want some publication to process information into conclusions.
bigbluedots 4y ago
Is that a fact? That is just, like, your opinion man.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ > In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism." Seems pretty political to me. Everyone here agrees that showing up with hundreds of pounds of explosives is terrorism.
  - zaphirplane 4y ago
    following charges: "Conspiracy to possess unregistered firearms, receive firearms and explosives shipped in interstate commerce while a fugitive, and unlawfully use false identification documents ...; possession of unregistered destructive devices, possession of unregistered firearm (two counts) ...; carrying explosives during commission of a felony ... ; possession with intent to unlawfully use false identification documents...; false representation of Social Security number, possession of counterfeit Social Security cards." Why a terrorist, looks like a run of the mill armed robber, further down the article a few references to armed robberies I fact checked you using the article you provided. I’m confused.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      What was she stealing from federal government buildings using HUNDREDS of pounds of explosives?
      - zaphirplane 4y ago
        Says who is the point they make No conviction, charges dropped, didn’t admit it

by hanoz 4y ago

raffraffraff 4y ago

Snopes isn't even trustworthy anymore. Reddit? Ideologically slanted. It's not so much moderated as outright censored. You don't notice it most of the time, but on certain topics only one perspective is allowed. It's not just on some subs, it's the platform.

n0tth3dro1ds 4y ago

[dead]

ggm 4y ago

That in itself, is but an opinion. You didn't hide it was an opinion, but that is in the end, all it is. I on the other hand, have another opinion. It is often important to have people who have contextual knowledge stand up and say "that input claiming to be fact is in fact (hah) rubbish" and the politicisation here, is because a very specific arc of engagement is CONSCIOUSLY intruding "fake news" as a tactical approach to dealing with it's concerns. That it overwhelmingly becomes labelled as a left-right or big-oil/green split, or Russia/Everyone-else or Trump/Biden.. is also something to reflect on. Exxon (as an example) had material facts to hand, in the 1970s regarding the future impact of CO2 and they made a decision (however informally or not) to surpress those facts, and participate in greenwashing messages, despite the consequences. Now, we could dive into a debate of the form "thats a lie! thats fake news" or not. I don't much care. In context, I think it informs the quality of the question "is fact checking important" and "is it political" and "is it just about rubbishing dissent" I think it is important. I think it is very political. I do not think it is just about rubbishing dissent.

jay_kyburz 4y ago
My startup idea, that if often laughed out of the room, it to develop a news site that separates events from the commentary on those events. On the left hand side of the page is a list of "testimony" of events. Who said what happened and when, along with any supporting evidence such as photos or video. (Without a journalist interpreting or crafting a story) On the right hand side of the page is commentary from interesting folks from both the left and right. (Pulling together the testimony, looking for insight, greater meaning, or identifying trends. )
- ggm 4y ago
  It's a nice idea, noting modern cohorts would include denials of the factuality.

fzeroracer 4y ago

People always focus on the agenda of the 'fact-checker' in these arguments, but never seem to focus on the agenda of the 'fact-checked'. This isn't to say that said fact checkers are always correct because people can always double back and issue a counter argument, but rather that it's easy for people to just post nonsense and run, leaving it to fester if uncontested. For example, there's been multiple incidents of that here on HN where people post something that's incorrect by all definitions. It statistically does not align with reality. The best way to counter the deluge of low effort, low accuracy claims is with a medium-effort, medium-accuracy source. Usually in these cases the poster simply vanishes because they did not intend to actually follow up a factual counterclaim.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>The best way to counter the deluge of low effort, low accuracy claims is with a medium-effort, medium-accuracy source. That's not an effective counter at least as far as my observation goes. These jerks win not by backing up their asinine claims with sources. They win by diverting everyone else's energy away from debating their asinine claims to making the debate one of sources. Heck, a good chunk of the time they do it you don't even need to find other sources because they're just using junk journalism where the title says A but the article says B. If being "proven wrong" was actually detrimental to their causes they would modify their behavior. I'm sure one of our resident link-spewers will be along shortly to disagree with me and then edit his comment five times adding subsequent links to garbage that nominally back up his assertion...
dylan604 4y ago
> The best way to counter the deluge of low effort, low accuracy claims is with a medium-effort, medium-accuracy source. except we now live in a world with phrases like alternative facts. if someone doesn't want to believe in something because it does not align with their ideals, then you will not be able to convince them regardless of how incontrovertible your facts may be. sure, the more "solid" the fact, the more bizarre the counter is, but there will always be a counter.
- ricardobeat 4y ago

drewrv 4y ago

The reason "fact-checked" seems political is because there is a movement among the American right to discredit any job that involves seeking or explaining the truth. I may come across as hyperbolic but I'm serious: name a job where you try to sort out what's true and what isn't, and American right-wing trolls will accuse it of bias. Scientist? Journalist? Professor? Librarian? Doctor? It was only a matter of time before "fact-checker" got the same treatment as these other people. None of these people or careers are beyond reproach, but there is a difference between good-faith attempts at finding the truth and bad-faith accusations of bias.

vintermann 4y ago
I've been a supporter of Wikileaks for many years, and I think that the idea that attacking journalists for publishing evidence is a uniquely Republican thing is disproved by what I've seen. Most of which you won't have seen, of course. One of the fact checkers given a prominent position on the front page of Google News is polygraph.info. Polygraph.info is run by Voice of America, official propaganda organ of the US, which was until a few years forbidden by law from targeting US citizens. Now I ask you: do you think it was for reasons of popular pressure, or maybe market forces, that Voice of America became a featured fact-checker for Google News? Also, do you think I could get them to fact check claims like, "The CIA considered concrete plans to assassinate Julian Assange"? You think that would ever happen, that they honestly promoted a little known fact which was deeply embarrassing to the US government? I find no good faith there. Maybe they have the luxury of less actual lying, because as a hegemonic propagandists, they can just stonewall when someone asks them an awkward question. Pretend they didn't hear it, because no one will report it. Underdog propagandists like RT don't have that luxury, so it's more efficient to conjure up a shitstorm of mutually incompatible lies for them. But their role is the same.
raffraffraff 4y ago
The American right don't have the monopoly on discrediting facts or fact checkers. The left are absolutely up to their necks in it too, both in America and abroad.
brailsafe 4y ago
Seems like a both sides sort of thing to me, especially with Twitter stuff coming out

nonethewiser 4y ago

> The very notion of fact-checked seems deeply politicised these days It's deeply politicized by nature. Fact checking is just spinning a narrative. You cant nor should not want some publication to process information into conclusions.

bigbluedots 4y ago

Is that a fact? That is just, like, your opinion man.

vorpalhex 4y ago
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ > In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism." Seems pretty political to me. Everyone here agrees that showing up with hundreds of pounds of explosives is terrorism.
- zaphirplane 4y ago
  following charges: "Conspiracy to possess unregistered firearms, receive firearms and explosives shipped in interstate commerce while a fugitive, and unlawfully use false identification documents ...; possession of unregistered destructive devices, possession of unregistered firearm (two counts) ...; carrying explosives during commission of a felony ... ; possession with intent to unlawfully use false identification documents...; false representation of Social Security number, possession of counterfeit Social Security cards." Why a terrorist, looks like a run of the mill armed robber, further down the article a few references to armed robberies I fact checked you using the article you provided. I’m confused.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    What was she stealing from federal government buildings using HUNDREDS of pounds of explosives?
    - zaphirplane 4y ago
      Says who is the point they make No conviction, charges dropped, didn’t admit it