7 ms·

Many of the "authoritative" sources the algorithm is drawing from have published incorrect information as recently as yesterday.

by daoboy 3y ago

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
This seems like a strong assertion. Would you share your source for it?
- junofan 3y ago
  Come on, let’s not stir the pot. Probably the hospital thing.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    I genuinely don't know. I haven't gotten news from any of the exampled sources recently - so I don't know what's being alleged. I see other comments referencing the hospital bombing so I can maybe piece it together from that. I've plenty of closer crisis to capture my attention as well.
- ReptileMan 3y ago
  Everyone that reported the bombing in Gaza of the hospital with 500 dead.
  - 542458 3y ago
    Reuters, Sky, PBS, CBS, etc. don't make any specific accusations about who was responsible in any articles I could find - they all report both accusations for who was responsible.
    - bdw5204 3y ago
      Their original reporting on Tuesday was just the Hamas claims, typically attributed to either the "Gaza Health Ministry" or "Palestinian Health Ministry" rather than "Hamas".
    - hersko 3y ago
      They all updated their articles. They initially published a Hamas talking point (i.e an outright lie) with no verification or questions, as if it were fact.
    - jasonlotito 3y ago
      This is, unfortunately, a case of people misreading and misunderstanding journalistic standards that have been around for a long time. CFN Headline: "So and so did X, claims Y" is seen as CFN making the claim that so and so did X. I see this time and time again, and it's effectively people not even reading the complete headline. While I don't blame the journalists for these headlines (people aren't even reading the headlines and instead interpreting them the way they want), I do wonder if there is a better solution. And I know someone is going to come in and claim "Only put facts in the headline" or something like that, and these are generally fact-based headlines. Someone of interest made a claim, so going completely fact-based isn't going to help, because that happens already and people get confused.
      - colejohnson66 3y ago
        It's standard journalistic practice to put "claims X" at the end of the headline. The "action" needs to be at the front of the headline to grab attention. It's not necessarily wrong to do so, but it could easily be avoided by titling as "Y claims So And So did X". The real issue is people not even reading the stories and only taking headlines as gospel. A bit of forgetfulness and telephone (the game) later and "So and so did X, Y claims" turns into "So and so did X".
        jasonlotito 3y ago
        Yeah, I was familiar with the practice to put "claims X" at the end, I just didn't make that clear. My question really revolves around: should that be changed? I wonder if this is a result of limited-character lengths on aggregators. It's easy to chop the end off of a headline and have it still make sense. Couple that with people reading only the first part of the headline and possibly ignoring the second part. I think your suggestion moving to attribution to the front would be helpful for headlines online. Maybe even have the title of the page have the attribution prepended to handle scrapers.
      - 542458 3y ago
        Yes, thank you. And while you can definitely bias your reporting by only recording one side's accusations, that's not what happened here. As far as I can tell, most major news orgs' articles were updated as soon as Israel put out a statement. Some would say that we should just wait for both sides to put out info, or wait for independent investigations before reporting anything, but that can take quite some time. On Sept 6 there was a missile strike in Ukraine that was initially attributed to Russia - but it took almost two weeks for investigations to find that it was likely a Ukrainian misfire.
    - guntherhermann 3y ago
      Because they all edit their articles 1984-style (We never said IDF were behind it / We never said there were 500 dead / We never said it was the hospital that was hit), instead of owning up and admitting mistakes they hide and pretend they never happened. To me it is a form of lying by omission
    - simonsarris 3y ago
      They reported claims that didn't happen and definitely couldn't be verified (for a minimum of many hours) and and then progressively edited it down, using photos from other events. Eg: https://twitter.com/Jingjing_Li/status/1714895998252621877 https://twitter.com/Jingjing_Li/status/1714895998252621877 They juxtaposed pictures to give the impression that destroyed buildings were the hospital, which was not destroyed: https://twitter.com/JerylBier/status/1714626674715722119 https://twitter.com/JerylBier/status/1714626674715722119
542458 3y ago
I think there’s a pretty big difference between something like the AP or Reuters that takes accuracy seriously, and many of the organizations that game the YouTube algorithm and just publish whatever gets the most engagement to drive themselves to the front page. For example, when the AP caught reporter Christopher Newton fabricating sources, they fired him and immediately conduced a review of everything he had written for them, issuing retractions or corrections as appropriate.
- Synaesthesia 3y ago
  Some of the biggest lies are by omission.
  - baz00 3y ago
    That's the BBC's policy. They either don't run stories or run them when attention is off the issue where they don't get ranked highly.
- Prickle 3y ago
  Agreed. Back during the Dave chappel Netflix protest, an AP photographer got caught writing false defamatory captions on some of the photos. They didn't issue a correction, but they did edit the photo caption to reflect reality. I would definitely prefer the AP over many other sources.
- ysavir 3y ago
  Wasn't that 20 years ago? Do they maintain the same integrity and diligence in the modern click-oriented age?
- mynameishere 3y ago
  When they find some lone wolf breaking the rules, sure they'll punish him. But when they act collectively, there is rarely a correction or (ha ha) compunction. The Russiagate hoax (ie, "Trump is a Russian agent") should have called for widespread reform of the entire media. I can't believe there is a single person who can take CNN/NY Times/LA Times/etc seriously at this point. But when it is 95 percent of the group committing the same outrage, I doubt any of them feel particularly guilty. Years before was the even-worse "Weapons of Mass Destruction" propaganda campaign. Maybe you're too young to remember it, but that was a whopper.
dmead 3y ago
many of the comments in this thread have been found to be unsubstantiated.
orangepurple 3y ago
Dr. Eric Berg DC describes this specific YouTube phenomenon as it pertains to health information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETonDtzkETw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETonDtzkETw
- tspng 3y ago
  I very strongly would not take any advice from a chiropractor and scientologist who gives health advice and sells his own products / courses on Youtube.
- snakeyjake 3y ago
  Chiropractors are as qualified to speak on medical matters as I am. I am 100% not qualified to speak on medical matters. YouTube would be completely justified in removing any content I create regarding diseases, treatments, or related matters. The fact that it is not common knowledge that chiropractors are actual, literal, charlatans is incomprehensible to me. edit: on further reflection I am probably somewhat more qualified than chiropractors to analyze and determine the validity of medical direction based on its source because the entire foundation of their profession is false and I know this whereas they do not.
DonaldTruck 3y ago
[flagged]

Many of the "authoritative" sources the algorithm is drawing from have published incorrect information as recently as yesterday.

by daoboy 3y ago

Many of the "authoritative" sources the algorithm is drawing from have published incorrect information as recently as yesterday.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

This seems like a strong assertion. Would you share your source for it?

junofan 3y ago
Come on, let’s not stir the pot. Probably the hospital thing.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  I genuinely don't know. I haven't gotten news from any of the exampled sources recently - so I don't know what's being alleged. I see other comments referencing the hospital bombing so I can maybe piece it together from that. I've plenty of closer crisis to capture my attention as well.
ReptileMan 3y ago
Everyone that reported the bombing in Gaza of the hospital with 500 dead.
- 542458 3y ago
  Reuters, Sky, PBS, CBS, etc. don't make any specific accusations about who was responsible in any articles I could find - they all report both accusations for who was responsible.
  - bdw5204 3y ago
    Their original reporting on Tuesday was just the Hamas claims, typically attributed to either the "Gaza Health Ministry" or "Palestinian Health Ministry" rather than "Hamas".
  - hersko 3y ago
    They all updated their articles. They initially published a Hamas talking point (i.e an outright lie) with no verification or questions, as if it were fact.
  - jasonlotito 3y ago
    This is, unfortunately, a case of people misreading and misunderstanding journalistic standards that have been around for a long time. CFN Headline: "So and so did X, claims Y" is seen as CFN making the claim that so and so did X. I see this time and time again, and it's effectively people not even reading the complete headline. While I don't blame the journalists for these headlines (people aren't even reading the headlines and instead interpreting them the way they want), I do wonder if there is a better solution. And I know someone is going to come in and claim "Only put facts in the headline" or something like that, and these are generally fact-based headlines. Someone of interest made a claim, so going completely fact-based isn't going to help, because that happens already and people get confused.
    - colejohnson66 3y ago
      It's standard journalistic practice to put "claims X" at the end of the headline. The "action" needs to be at the front of the headline to grab attention. It's not necessarily wrong to do so, but it could easily be avoided by titling as "Y claims So And So did X". The real issue is people not even reading the stories and only taking headlines as gospel. A bit of forgetfulness and telephone (the game) later and "So and so did X, Y claims" turns into "So and so did X".
      - jasonlotito 3y ago
        Yeah, I was familiar with the practice to put "claims X" at the end, I just didn't make that clear. My question really revolves around: should that be changed? I wonder if this is a result of limited-character lengths on aggregators. It's easy to chop the end off of a headline and have it still make sense. Couple that with people reading only the first part of the headline and possibly ignoring the second part. I think your suggestion moving to attribution to the front would be helpful for headlines online. Maybe even have the title of the page have the attribution prepended to handle scrapers.
    - 542458 3y ago
      Yes, thank you. And while you can definitely bias your reporting by only recording one side's accusations, that's not what happened here. As far as I can tell, most major news orgs' articles were updated as soon as Israel put out a statement. Some would say that we should just wait for both sides to put out info, or wait for independent investigations before reporting anything, but that can take quite some time. On Sept 6 there was a missile strike in Ukraine that was initially attributed to Russia - but it took almost two weeks for investigations to find that it was likely a Ukrainian misfire.
  - guntherhermann 3y ago
    Because they all edit their articles 1984-style (We never said IDF were behind it / We never said there were 500 dead / We never said it was the hospital that was hit), instead of owning up and admitting mistakes they hide and pretend they never happened. To me it is a form of lying by omission
  - simonsarris 3y ago
    They reported claims that didn't happen and definitely couldn't be verified (for a minimum of many hours) and and then progressively edited it down, using photos from other events. Eg: https://twitter.com/Jingjing_Li/status/1714895998252621877 https://twitter.com/Jingjing_Li/status/1714895998252621877 They juxtaposed pictures to give the impression that destroyed buildings were the hospital, which was not destroyed: https://twitter.com/JerylBier/status/1714626674715722119 https://twitter.com/JerylBier/status/1714626674715722119

542458 3y ago

I think there’s a pretty big difference between something like the AP or Reuters that takes accuracy seriously, and many of the organizations that game the YouTube algorithm and just publish whatever gets the most engagement to drive themselves to the front page. For example, when the AP caught reporter Christopher Newton fabricating sources, they fired him and immediately conduced a review of everything he had written for them, issuing retractions or corrections as appropriate.

Synaesthesia 3y ago
Some of the biggest lies are by omission.
- baz00 3y ago
  That's the BBC's policy. They either don't run stories or run them when attention is off the issue where they don't get ranked highly.
Prickle 3y ago
Agreed. Back during the Dave chappel Netflix protest, an AP photographer got caught writing false defamatory captions on some of the photos. They didn't issue a correction, but they did edit the photo caption to reflect reality. I would definitely prefer the AP over many other sources.
ysavir 3y ago
Wasn't that 20 years ago? Do they maintain the same integrity and diligence in the modern click-oriented age?
mynameishere 3y ago
When they find some lone wolf breaking the rules, sure they'll punish him. But when they act collectively, there is rarely a correction or (ha ha) compunction. The Russiagate hoax (ie, "Trump is a Russian agent") should have called for widespread reform of the entire media. I can't believe there is a single person who can take CNN/NY Times/LA Times/etc seriously at this point. But when it is 95 percent of the group committing the same outrage, I doubt any of them feel particularly guilty. Years before was the even-worse "Weapons of Mass Destruction" propaganda campaign. Maybe you're too young to remember it, but that was a whopper.

dmead 3y ago

many of the comments in this thread have been found to be unsubstantiated.

orangepurple 3y ago

Dr. Eric Berg DC describes this specific YouTube phenomenon as it pertains to health information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETonDtzkETw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETonDtzkETw

tspng 3y ago
I very strongly would not take any advice from a chiropractor and scientologist who gives health advice and sells his own products / courses on Youtube.
snakeyjake 3y ago
Chiropractors are as qualified to speak on medical matters as I am. I am 100% not qualified to speak on medical matters. YouTube would be completely justified in removing any content I create regarding diseases, treatments, or related matters. The fact that it is not common knowledge that chiropractors are actual, literal, charlatans is incomprehensible to me. edit: on further reflection I am probably somewhat more qualified than chiropractors to analyze and determine the validity of medical direction based on its source because the entire foundation of their profession is false and I know this whereas they do not.

DonaldTruck 3y ago

[flagged]