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.
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.
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.
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.
But who fact checks the fact checkers?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
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.
If something is never reported, it can never be fact checked.
captcha: industry
I guess you are in the camp of "both are establishment", which makes no sense to me. They both have money and are elitist, but that's not the issue in a principate. This may literally be one of the last times (in anyone reading's lifetime) that the political arena will result in a choice between a self-appointed egoist (who basically scammed his way via celebrity) and a multinational political favorite for POTUS. This will poison that contest forever, either through his failure to win or his failure as a president.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
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.
Its not only conservatives who ignore or deny reality when it conflicts with their beliefs.
Liberals can have their own blind-spots to science, such as gender and racial differences.
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.
Prison sentences?
-- Pete.
Monochrome - Probably the UK's largest internet BBS
"There was no classified information on that server. None."
"It was not classified at the time."
"It was not marked classified."
"I relied on others to properly handle classified information."
Should I continue? Perhaps on transparency, or bribes, or when we should trust rape accusers?
The problem is they're really just propaganda and get cited as if they're authority.
Jeb Bush: "My name is Jeb Bush."
Politificat: "Pants on fire! His real name is John Ellis Bush."
When Snopes gets political they do the stawman thing. If you make Claim A, they'll restate your claim as B, which is similar to A but not actually A, then debunk B calling it "mostly false," and then at the end say "what's actually true is A..." But all the casual observer sees is that you're a liar making mostly false claims, even though your claim was entirely true.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.