Slashdot Mirror
Google News Introduces Fact Check Feature -- Just In Time For the US Election (thenextweb.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Next Web: Google today introduced a new feature that will tag and help find "fact checking in large news stories." Tagged articles will show up in the new story box on news.google.com, as well as in the Google News and Weather app for iOS and Android in the US and UK. There's a two-pronged approach to detecting fact checking. First Google looks for actual markup in the site's source code. Then Google looks for pages "that follow the commonly accepted criteria for fact checks." You can learn more about the process here. To be clear, the tags show up in small grey text above the article links -- Google itself isn't passing judgement, nor does it tell you the source article's conclusion in search results. It's merely a sign that says "hey, read me to find out the truth." Still, it's a nice way to make sure readers are at least forming opinions based on fact rather than fiction.
Or will it lead to runaway recursion?
Google will check with Hillary's campaign to see if it's okay to repeat the lies or just substitute their own. Credibility and truth will little to do with it.
This surely won't be abused to push public opinion one way or the other. Nope, not ever.
Nothing like letting a group with publicly declared political affiliation put in automatic links to "TRUTH".
I wonder how they'll rate the AP, the "news" org that tried to declare that Assad was an ISIS ally?
Or NBC, which declared that Hillary did nothing wrong with her email server, because she used no "corrosive chemicals" to destroy evidence?
Or Google, when they declared they were not cooperating with the NSA to deliver email content? Oh, wait...
captcha: "erasable"
which is the burying of critical stories. All these released tapes and allegations of sexual assault should have come out long ago, at least before the RNC primary. Instead they were intentionally held to benefit HRC.
Expecting conservative meltdown in 3... 2...
As most of us know: Reality, and thus also facts, is/are clearly liberally biased.
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
Means "approved statement by the Clinton campaign."
These days "fact checking"=spin doctoring, finding some slightly relevant fact to pin whatever statement you want to make to.
Might as well start renaming our press outlets "Pravda"
if source == clinton {
fact = 1
} else {
fact = 0
}
... as though I'm going to trust a mega-corp for the truth.
http://www.democracynow.org/20...
https://capitalresearch.org/20...
https://www.spreaker.com/user/...
http://observer.com/2016/08/te...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
https://www.bing.com/search?q=...
Hell the man built a company just to help Hillary (search for Hillary, Eric Schmidt, Groundgame)
So just who is going to be able to fact check Google's already established bias ?
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09...
I think I am going to start rotating search engines. Variety is likely for the best.
Homer: [scoffs] Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. Facts schmacts
Trust Google? Whahahhahahah
If statement agrees with the establishment: Fact.
If statement disagrees with the establishment: Not Fact.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Hoping this from one of the links will lead to better-informed comments:
Fact Check
Google News may apply this label to your content if you publish stories with fact-checking content that's indicated by schema.org ClaimReview markup, especially round-up stories that contain multiple fact-check analyses within a single article. The (fact-checking) label helps users find fact-checking content in major stories.
When determining whether to use this tag for your article, consider whether that article meets the following criteria, which we consider characteristics of fact-checking sites:
Discrete claims and checks must be easily identified in the body of fact-check articles. Readers should be able to understand what was checked, and what conclusions were reached.
Analysis must be transparent about sources and methods, with citations and references to primary sources.
The organization must be nonpartisan, with transparent funding and affiliations. It should examine a range of claims in its topic area, instead of targeting a single person or entity.
Article titles must indicate that a claim is being reviewed, state the conclusions reached, or simply frame that the articleâ(TM)s contents consist of fact checking.
Please note, that if we find sites not following those criteria for the ClaimReview markup, we may, at our discretion, either ignore that site's markup or remove the site from Google News.
Who's """facts"""? The left or the right?
Ah, who am I kidding.
Sounds like sites that serve lies (of whatever you want to call non-facts presented as facts) need to invest a bit more effort. On the plus side, if they do, they now have more clout, because "Google says it is true".
Another instance of Google "engineers" and "scientists" grossly overestimating what can actually be automatized and what cannot. Or maybe they just do not care as long as they get more clicks. Google is much more of a problem these days than a good thing.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Why does Google have to be so anti-Trump?
If something is never reported, it can never be fact checked.
captcha: industry
Politicizing your service in **ANY** way is basically asking for having half of the population hating it, which IS a bad idea and google will lose money on that.
That lawsuit against Trump claiming rape of a 13 year old (Maria Doe) was filed during the *Primaries*. If anyone is doing the fake rape charge against Trump it was likely the other Republican nominees!
Just one question: Are they using the same engine that Facebook uses to promote trending news? You know, the one that was posting a bunch of articles from parody sites?
Beyond that, Google has given up on their "Do no evil" motto since they became subsidiaries of Alphabet. Do your own research or you will wind up ignorant, brain washed or worse. They are in tight with the Obama administration, does anyone believe that their fact checking is going to look at both sides of each assertion by each candidate?
https://theintercept.com/2016/...
Are they going to hold Hillary accountable for her lie that she said denying that she said that the TPP is the gold standard for trade agreements?
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
What is truth?
I figured this would be filled by pro-Hillary posts here saying "yeah well its ok for Google to do this because Hillary"
Was surprised to see the complete opposite. I don't like Trump one bit - but Hillary is fucking even scarier now. Holy shit. (And so is Google).
Trump was usually correct, and she was usually lying.
Where is the fact checking?
I was curious how it worked for Clinton's Deposition answers....how will google identify if she is lying for any of those answers??????
I read it, Trump is always a liar and Clinton always the truth. Then I read it again, and maybe he means its biased in favor of Trump.
It's sort of dual meaning.
... when Hell freezes over. Google = Jews.
This is the type of fact checking they mean, I assume.
They rate as "Mostly False" something where the only disputable fact is whether she "volunteered" for it, and it appears she didn't. Literally everything else in the little poster is demonstrably true, in fact they actually say the same thing below.
Hillary Clinton volunteered to defend a rapist. False. OK, they're good there.
Hillary Clinton alleged that the victim was lying/crazy. True. Snopes tries to be cute and claim that she's just repeating what some psychiatrist said, because.. you know.. defense lawyers never find an expert witness to say what they want. Sorry, fact is that Clinton accused the victim of being crazy. Sure, she used the "I have been told" weasel words, but as we know from Trumps similar tactic that means nothing. It's in the affidavit and she signed it.
Hillary got the guy off a longer sentence, and laughed about it. True. Again, these are unarguable facts. You can certainly quibble over context, but the fact is that the guy got a reduced sentence, that she implied he was guilty, and that she laughed about said implication. All public record and undeniable.
So tell me how that is "mostly false"? I might give them credit if they said "mixed" or "depends on context and interpretation". I can also see how even in the context of these facts you could say that none of it is a big deal, and that's a valid interpretation. But just "Mostly False"? No. It's isn't.
President Oboner showing of his 'Agent' as they call it double the views in 24 hours but is missing from the trending videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Google is another clinton shill.
You follow up the sources to ensure they're credible (if it doesn't list sources it's not much of a fact-checker). You also compare against other fact-checkers, to see if the sources were cherry-picked.You should already be doing this for anything even vaguely controversial you read on the internet.
Fact-checking sites aren't the sole arbiters of truth, they're just conveniences to save you the bother of googling the info yourself.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
People aren't interested in facts unless it's to bolster their pre-existing need. .. they are able to paint an image that all the immigrants are dangerous. They won't mention that overall murder and violent crime in the US has drastically reduced and is now at historic lows. They won't mention that there was higher crime prior to the recent illegal immigrant influx. If you fact checked whether a certain town has a high crime rate correlated with immigrants .. that will tell you what you want to hear .. but it won't tell you the overall truth. Why do you think Donald Trump focussed on crime in Chicago? He isn't running for Mayor of Chicago. Fact checking is useless, because it lacks context. Always seek the context behind the fact .. if you give a shit about the truth .. which you don't.
Prime example: People hate immigrants, so every time there is a crime by an immigrant it gets all over the news. Statistics are cited that in a certain location crime has skyrocketed due to immigrants. So using cherrypicking of facts
"You (Hillary Clinton) get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails." -- Donald Trump
Politifact rates that a "Half-Truth" because (according to Politifact):
Trump’s timeline is correct. The congressional subpoena came on March 4, 2015, and an employee deleted the emails sometime after March 25, 2015, three weeks later.
However, the implication — that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny — is unprovable if not flat wrong.
The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."
That's absurd. First of all, you don't fact check on an implication, it was a very straight-forward statement of fact. Secondly, the FBI finding "no evidence" doesn't even prove the implication false.
I checked news.google.com and didn't see those grey boxes with "facts check". I was hoping to get some insight from the comments on slashdot, instead I see a political sebate between the supporters of Hillary Clinton and Donalt Trump (not really useful here). So, can anyone confirm that the so-called "fact check" is working? There are lots and lots of news unrelated to the USA election campaign and I was really curious how the system works and wether it's effective of not...
+
https://theintercept.com/
Which they were able to do by the Liberty fought for by Republicans.
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.
Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.
Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!
Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.
A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a
Right. One of those candidates has actually built something and has prior executive experience.
This year, one of the candidates has a proven track record of corruption followed by cover-up followed by repeating the process.
(Personally, I plan on voting for the budget-balancing governors in this race.)
no.
not this tired bull crap again.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
That's what happens when people blithely buy into black-and-white thinking like the "all politicians are liars" meme. There is a difference between lying and lying your fucking ass off.
Ignoring differences out of cynicism just encourages the worst behavior because good behavior isn't rewarded.
"What is truth?" ~Pontius Pilate
Anything other that based on empirical evidence, ie raw video, direct observation, etc. is, by definition, bullshit.
political indoctrination by censoring of unfavorable opinions. And the sheep are readier than ever to be told what is true and what is false.
It's worth noting that Google is not an unbiased source since they've donated millions in money and services to Hillary's campaign and have visited Obama's Whitehouse more than any other group.
Just before they make them up. WAKKA WAKKAAAAAAA!!!! Ba dum tssss
> Right. One of those candidates has actually built something and has prior executive experience.
One of these candidates was born with a silver spoon and a level of inherited wealth that has not significantly increased during his lifespan, despite his shedding of debt through three bankruptcies.
> This year, one of the candidates has a proven track record of corruption followed by cover-up followed by repeating the process.
That sounds like Trump to me. How many times has he been sued and even criminally tried in court and settled without admitting fault?
Example: One person has a bullet hole in the chest, and another has 42 paper cuts. Which is worse?
Trump spews bullshit fast and furious. He uses hyperbole and sarcasm. All of this is being counted as lies.
Clinton is more calculating. She very carefully lies to cover up her crimes. She lies about stuff like accepting bribes (WTF 3rd world!!!) and security violations (done to evade the FOIA).
By the numbers, Trump is worse. He's the one with the paper cuts. It's pretty clear that Clinton's lies, though fewer in number, are far more serious.
With the advent of Trump style politics I'm getting the feeling that we need to mandate that whenever a politician is publicly speaking they're followed around by something similar that blows a fog horn every time they lie. I think some of the debate fact-checks show Trump outright lying over half of the time and Clinton at least "stretching the truth" a good quarter of the time. It shouldn't be an issue, as if a politician is caught telling bold faced lies it should instantly end their career, but for some reason the public seems to be tolerating it.
[meta-monkey wrote: " There's nothing at all fishy about this to anyone except those who hate strong independent wymynz what don't need no man."]
Grab this -- and share -- before YouTube takes it down: "Donald Trump secret meeting leaked", posted by John Patrick Acquaviva, May 31, 2016 at https://youtu.be/ZJyIztXX3Bs?t=9s (236, 826 views). Sadly, the prophecy that Trump made in 1980 (thirty-six years ago) in that video has come true,
Grab and share what Joe Watson wrote:
During the last debate there were "Fact Checkers" that were wrong on their facts.
We need a none bias system without any human contact,
https://newslookup.com/ for example where links are not promoted or weighted in favor of any site and listed as crawled.
So again nobody here is actually willing to read the article and follow the links, instead preferring to make political points and snarky comments.
Well I did read, and sorry to say this feature is practically worthless. For an article to have a Fact Check mark it requires that specific markup be added to the original article referencing the linked to facts. This is all fine and dandy if you are a responsible news organisation who is reporting others dubious claims and wants to add fact checks to it. Less so if you are one of the Partisan press organisations that just blindly post whatever your chosen candidate says as though it is the gospel truth.
What is really needed here is a crowd sourced Fact Check markup that readers can apply to chosen articles in the same way as the Wikipedia 'Citation Needed' markup.
While we are at it Google, it would be so nice if you could stop posting Pseudoscience articles in the Science news feed. One would have thought after repeatedly having the items down-voted you would get the hint.
People may have forgotten that Bloomberg, a Trump hater, reported this activity.
Google itself, has had nearly weekly meetings with the Obama White House.
Google employees were Obama's 4th largest source of cash in 2008, and 3rd largest source in 2012.
More than 250 people have shuffled back-and-forth between the Obama administration and Google.
Massive centralized government is in the process of uniting with the political party of big government, and the multinational corporations who control communications and monitor the public. Those communications companies are running "fact checking" sites that rule opposing views as lies without any legal process or appeals, and frequently putting 10 to 20 times the emphasis on negative news for their opponents as on negative news for their allies. Start shining-up yer jack-boots folks.... we are becoming a fascist nation and it's a good idea to be on the side of the national socialists when they begin to assert full control - George Soros has said so - Google him.
Google has thrown its future in with the Orwellian group called the Democratic party - so they are strong supporters of thinkspeak, so that anything the Democrats say will be the truth... So now I give them the same credit I get the NYT - zilch...
You don't understand the category differences between banks and real estate, but they are real. Banks have a common set of consumer-shafting policies that are in their interest. Real estate developers only really agree on eminent domain for redevelopment. They're much less likely to push for the same government policies.
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is" - William Jefferson Clinton
Remember: Bill Clinton had to settle with Paula Jones after she PROVED he had shoved his member into her face - she was able to accurately describe his penile deformity.
Every Democrat of note in the country defended Bill Clinton all through the 1990s as he was molesting and sexually harassing women in the White House and facing rape charges. NOTE: Bill Clinton's accusers were NOT political opponents - almost all were either his own campaign team workers or his political hires working as his employees and most had witnesses FROM THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED EVENTS.
Why not? Because you can't fact check away history books!
Fact: Being cool with extreme torture, especially without a fair trial, is evil.
Fact: Deliberately targeting people who are related to terrorists but have committed no crime is evil.
Fact: The last thing you cite was in 1964.
Fact: Most Republicans today are against the Civil Rights Act.
Fact check? Not. Google whores for hillary http://www.democracynow.org/20... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... https://theintercept.com/2016/... https://aeon.co/essays/how-the... http://thehill.com/policy/tech... http://observer.com/2016/08/te...
Whose facts will they be checking against? It seems to me that everyone now has their own brand of facts and that every time I hear the words "fact checking" what they are really saying is that they are checking information against their own personal or organizational bias. This is particularly evident when facts are checked against statistics that are derived from loosely based correlations, something that is rampant in our society currently. An example: A went up as B went down: there is a correlation. There is an obvious flaw in that assumption and yet that exact logical flaw is abundant and pervasive throughout our news outlets - it is not science. This has led to a complete breakdown of trust in the media outlets of the United States. Given that Google is prone to use machine learning to solve its problems, they are virtually certain to feed in or create statistics of this dubious nature whether they wish to or not. That's my two cents.
Next step of course if if you point out the crazy leftist lies, Google will simply terminate your account. For some people that means:
No phone
No tablet
No thermostat in their house
No TV
Maybe no Car
For the most part, say something wrong and you could really screw yourself good. It's coming I bet.
And that you misunderstood "implication" thinking it is related to if-then logic, so you are confused with something being "half true".
Instead of "implication" being used commonly as a synonym for "suggesting" - i.e. "insinuating", i.e. "claiming".
And let us also assume that you haven't actually read through the article you quoted.
Cause it actually has a video of Trump "making that claim".
The "half true" in fabula lies on the back of Trump getting the timeline correct.
That's the "true" part of the "half true". He got his A before his B. He got the order of the dates correctly.
Which IS somewhat of a feat for a man who can't get the date of election right.
But ignore him getting the timeline right and look at the claim as meaning "BECAUSE you got a subpoena you have deleted 33,000 emails." (which is what he is claiming) - and it's nothing but unproven bullshit.
Except it's not just any unproven bullshit - it's "after being investigated by the FBI - who found nothing" unproven bullshit.
Politifact didn't infer anything.
Nor did they set up a straw man argument as you seem to be implying there. As in, suggesting.
They are just too polite and too nitpicky to simply label it "bullshit". Which is what it is.
Cause he isn't talking about the order of the dates... however amazing it might be that Trump got that part right.
Well... if we assume that he isn't a complete imbecile who is simply thrilled about figuring out the order of the dates of the events, and that he is thus not talking about dates but about some sort of guilt regarding those events.
I mean... that could be true as well... but it's doubtful.
He's obviously at the very least a moron.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
youre right.
therefore, read and become edumicated you fucking racist moron, and stop spreading bullshit:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-tr...
Is it true that Democrats used to be the conservative party and Republicans used to be the progressive party?
Something I learned in history class is that the Republicans tended to be against slavery, while the Democrats were for it. It was a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who was the politician who made the greatest impact against slavery. Yet, now things have changed. Republican politicians have routinely been accused of racism, and ethnic minorities are more likely to be supportive of the Democrats.
I'm sure the whole truth is more complex than two parties switching their main ideologies, but what is the truth?
49 Answers
Murray Godfrey
Murray Godfrey, U.S History Professor
Updated 3 Jun 2015 Upvoted by Marc Bodnick, former Stanford Poli Sci PhD; student of Congress
I teach history for a living. What you've learned is accurate.
Understanding this has to do more with understanding U.S. political history in general.
The republicans were a new party in Lincoln's day. They were a conglomeration of various northern former Whig constituencies and people that wanted to develop the west that coalesced due to issues surrounding slavery. Generally speaking, they retained a lot of the older Whig economic views that the government should be involved in the economy. It should promote policies that promote growth, they thought. That meant financing infrastructure, education, protecting native industries, policies that promoted commerce and rapid job growth. They did believe in more federal involvement in all these things, and it cost money. They were the forward looking, innovative party, and also vaguely speaking they were the "big government" party and had policies that promoted big banks, big industry, big business.
The democrats were the more tradition-minded party. They were also the party focused on keeping taxes low and when it came to promoting commerce, etc... wanted to leave it to the states. Generally speaking, they were the "states' rights" party.
The shift started after the Civil War and continued for over 135 years. After the civil war, the republicans started to split into factions generally divided between how deep "in bed" you got with big business, so they developed a conservative business wing often at odds with with the more progressive wing. The democrats pretty much stayed the states rights party and were marginalized at the national level for several decades.
Key points in the shift to the structure we know today:
1896: William Jennings Bryan incorporates the Populist Party vote, giving the democrats a sizable left wing on economics that it didn't have before.
1912: Theodore Roosevelt breaks from the republicans and runs as the candidate of the Progressive Party - this makes the republican progressive wing - once a third to a half of the republican coalition, much less committed to the party going forward and they never really reconcile. Republican leadership comes more and more from its conservative wing after that.
1932-45: Franklin Roosevelt essentially adopts most of the old Progressive platform and pretty much incorporates that whole vote into his Democratic coalition. This puts the party on a collision course when it comes to social policy.
1964: Lyndon Johnson essentially divorces the longest marriage the democratic party had: the one with southern whites. By making Civil Rights part of the Democratic platform, the republicans lose basically all of what's left of their black constituencies - which had been a significant part of their remaining progressive vote in northern urban areas. The democrats start to hemorrhage southern whites rapidly - you see George Wallace run for pres
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I've stopped using google for many months now. Don't miss it. The only google service I consciously use is Youtube. Now there are other ways to get things done.
This sig can be distributed under the LGPL license
They are not determining if they are real-facts, only if they are good-facts.