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.

Comments

Sure Google....

[dbreeze]

... 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...

Re:OK but misses a larger problem

[Black Parrot]

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.

Actually it's just a case of what-goes-around-comes-around. Some of the women have explicitly stated that they were motivated to come out by his denials during the second debate.

Poetic justice, IMO, after featuring Blll Clinton's accusers as the centerpiece of his strategy last weekend. He's outraged that anyone would be interested in the same accusations against him.

Eric Schmidt is a giant Hillary Supporter

[Crashmarik]

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.

Google Facts

[bestweasel]

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.

Re:OK but misses a larger problem

[Orgasmatron]

She was scared to accuse the Attorney General of the state (who already had a body count). Also, in 1978, inviting a man up to her room could plausibly be taken the wrong way. Remember what Hillary had already done to Kathy Shelton a few years earlier. If Juanita had formally accused Bill of rape, she'd have been on the receiving end of all that, and probably much more.

Still, she didn't keep completely silent, she told a few people, including a nurse that found her in bed a few hours after the attack, and some other close friends. Some of those people blabbed, and word got out. People hid tape recorders when talking to her in hopes of getting her to drop her guard and talk about it. She refused to talk about it, saying "you can't get to him, and I'm not going to ruin my good name to do it ... here's just absolutely no way anyone can get to him, he's just too vicious".

After something like seven years of trying to get her to talk, the story was openly circulating in the tabloids with her name attached, and she finally relented.

If you've seen any of the early interviews with her, it is pretty obvious why she didn't want to talk about it for 20 years. It is still a very painful memory for her, and she is visibly shaken when talking about it.

There are some notable elements missing from Juanita's story. Until Trump tricked them, the press wouldn't touch her story with a 10 foot pole because it is missing these elements, which apparently dictate which stories are credible:
* plagarism from other famous sexual assault cases and/or pop songs
* robotic monotone retelling
* claims that her attacker had superhuman strength (to bend a solid aluminum airline seat)
* total silence even to her closest friends until the last few weeks before an election
* contradictory stories told to close friends at the time of the incident
* The One Ring to become invisible to slip past guard/chaperones stationed outside the door
* laughably public setting
* heavy involvement with the other candidate's campaign

Re:Yeah. Right

[ClickOnThis]

Of the two main candidates in this race, one of them has a much more difficult relationship with the truth.

So, it would hardly be surprising if Google's fact-check alarm went off more frequently with that candidate.

Re:OK but misses a larger problem

[PopeRatzo]

Remember what Hillary had already done to Kathy Shelton a few years earlier.

Debunked.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-...

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

You're worldview is built on a lie. You might want to do something about that.

Re:Expect conservative meltdown.

[allcoolnameswheretak]

That is true. Genders and races are a real thing and there are differences between them. Not just outward appearances, but real physical or intellectual differences. On average, men are physically stronger than women, women are emotionally more stable and less aggressive than men, white people are more intelligent than black people, black men have longer ... you know, than white men.

On average.
But down to the level of individuals, it's unfair to judge people based on averages. Do you consider yourself an average person? On an individual level, everyone is different.
But the key point is that, even though people are different in many ways, be it race, gender or their individual characteristics, they all deserve to be treated the same and given the same chances. Because we are all humans with our hopes, dreams, emotions and potential, regardless of physical or intellectual ability.

In fact, many times it's the people who are at a disadvantage that perform big acts and change the world. Being handicapped in a way, but having the need for respect and recognition, is one of the strongest motivators. Short men like Napoleon and Hitler set out to conquer Europe. Physically unattractive people tend to follow intellectual pursuits and provide humanity with great innovations. Socially disadvantaged people like Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks engaged themselves politically and managed to change a nation.

This is why I think that "fascism" as an ideology is wrong. At first glance it might sound like a brutal, but scientifically logical idea to weed out the "weak" and only breed the pure and strong. But often times it's the "weak" who accomplish great things and move humanity forward, because they are the ones who are out there to prove themselves. Not to mention that science also tells us that genetic homogeneity is a weakness whereas diversity and the mixing of genes is critical for long-term survival.

Re:Yeah. Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look it's a Politifact shill. Totally not biased! Much neutral!

Re: If it's like Politifake, expect far left bias.

[Swave An deBwoner]

If you are seriously asking this, then here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

He worked as a civil rights attorney and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School between 1992 and 2004. While serving three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004, he ran unsuccessfully in the Democratic primary for the United States House of Representatives in 2000 against incumbent Bobby Rush.

In 2004, Obama received national attention during his campaign to represent Illinois in the United States Senate with his victory in the March Democratic Party primary, his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July, and his election to the Senate in November. He began his presidential campaign in 2007 and, after a close primary campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2008, he won sufficient delegates in the Democratic Party primaries to receive the presidential nomination. He then defeated Republican nominee John McCain in the general election, and was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009.

Significantly different from a candidate whose resume consists of real estate deals, discriminatory renting policies, operating gambling casinos, and promoting beauty pagents.

Re:Yeah. Right

[AmiMoJo]

Funny thing is Rachel Maddow has been doing a series on how Politifact gets it wrong with Democrats. You can watch it on YouTube.

In other words, you can pick and choose examples to "prove" bias either way, or just do the sensible thing and accept that Politifact is kinda shit.