Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Should Web Browsers Have 'Fact Checking' Capability Built-In?
Reader dryriver writes: There is no shortage of internet websites these days that peddle "information", "knowledge", "analysis", "explanations" or even supposed "facts" that don't hold up to even the most basic scrutiny -- one quick trip over to Wikipedia, Snopes, an academic journal or another reasonably factual/unbiased source, and you realize that you've just been fed a triple dose of factually inaccurate horsecrap masquerading as "fact". Unfortunately, many millions of more naive internet users appear to frequent sites daily that very blatantly peddle "untruths", "pseudo-facts" or even "agitprop-like disinformation", the latter sometimes paid for by someone somewhere. No small number of these more gullible internet users then wind up believing just about everything they read or watch on these sites, and in some cases cause other gullible people in the offline world to believe in them too. Now here is an interesting idea: What if your internet browser -- whether Edge, Firefox, Chrome, Opera or other -- was able provide an "information accuracy rating" of some sort when you visit a certain URL. Perhaps something like "11,992 internet users give this website a factual accuracy rating of 3.7/10. This may mean that the website you are visiting is prone to presenting information that may not be factually accurate." You could also take this 2 steps further. You could have a small army of "certified fact checkers" -- people with scientific credentials, positions in academia or similar -- provide a rolling "expert rating" on the very worst of these websites, displayed as "warning scores" by the web browser. Or you could have a keyword analysis algorithm/AI/web crawler go through the webpage you are looking at, try to cross-reference the information presented to you against a selection of "more trusted sources" in the background, and warn you if information presented on a webpage as "fact" simply does not check out. Is this a good idea? Could it be made to work technically? Might a browser feature like this make the internet as a whole a "more factually accurate place" to get information from?That's a remarkable idea. It appears to me that many companies are working on it -- albeit not fast enough, many can say. Google, for instance, recently began adding "Fact check" to some stories in search results. I am not sure how every participating player in this game could implement this in their respective web browsers though. Then there is this fundamental issue: the ability to quickly check whether or not something is indeed accurate. There's too much noise out there, and many publications and blogs report on things (upcoming products, for instance) before things are official. How do you verify such stories? If the NYTimes says, for instance, Apple is not going to launch any iPhone next year, and every website cites NYTimes and republishes it, how do you fact check that? And at last, a lot of fake stories circulate on Facebook. You may think it's a problem. Obama may think it's a problem, but does Facebook see it as a problem? For all it care, those stories are still generating engagement on its site.
Why should I trust the people you say I should trust to say who I should trust?
First and foremost, you're probably looking at a major free speech concern the second something is listed incorrectly. You've got to quantify partial truths, exaggerations, etc. You've got to be able to fully reference the fact checkers themselves and on top of that you've got to monitor their sources for accuracy that could later change things. Verified vs unverified info gets crazy with journalist using anonymous sources or protecting their sources. Others, such as leaked info from inside an organization that leaves no means of actually fact checking it becomes even crazier.
Then you take a historical topic that requires a lot of study and context to fully understand what a statement on the subject even means and that's left to the devices/spare time of the people who are supposed to be doing it.
Distinctly complicated road to hoe.
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
No
Stop scope creep. A browser should be a BROWSER.
You want to learn the facts and the truth, do your own research. You want to see all sides of the story you can't trust ANY big company regardless of how hands off they are with any of their web browsers.
No one is truthful, everyone lies. Seek the truth yourself and make an informed opinion on what you read on various sites.
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
Any browser that does this will instantly stop being my browser.
Show me websites, then fuck off.
We just had a Slashdot article about only 1 in 4 articles on Wikipedia being free from bias; what makes you think the "fact check" sites are better?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You don't see the value in outsourcing all your thinking to corporations like Google, Apple, etc.?
Would that be the New-York Times fact-checker, or the Fox News fact-checker ?
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Of course not.
Most halfway normal and educated people have no problems with discerning reality from imagination and propaganda, and the rest will not believe in extra 'checked' facts anyway. Yes, on the Internet conspiracy crackpots can easily find forums on which they reinforce their world views but they're not a new phenomenon. Most of them probably need a bit more sleep, the feeling of being needed and a bit less sorrows much more than facts.
Dont let the title mislead you here, not trying to troll.
The issue this article is really about, is about people not having the time to self-educate, and as such, not having time to fact check their media consumption.
Firstly, this is feature creep in the browser. The browser allows you to consume the information of your choosing. It should not interfere in one's choice of information to consume, so "No."
This is a consequence of being overworked (Notice that this is for the United States, land of the 1-week a year "vacation."), and having insufficient time for personal improvement activities.
When there is a "Now you no longer have to do all that troublesome and time consuming fact checking and self-improvement, because you can use our convenient Truthiness App instead!", you just produce a channel by which "truth" (the political kind!) can be disseminated to the masses without question. So, "Hell no."
It also obviates yet another challenge against the time demands of the corporate interests against their workers, because now they dont really need all that time to themselves for self-improvement. Which brings us to the obligatory "Go fuck yourself."
The real solution is to stop robbing people of personal time, because that is what causes this problem to begin with.
No.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The web browser should be as small and lean as possible. It's job is to render HTML. Fact checking is *NOT* the browser's job.
Your TV does not cook you dinner.
Your car does not raise your kids.
Your cell phone does not do your laundry.
Of course your browser should not check facts for you.
It's a browser.
It's sole function is to act as a gateway to information contained out on the web.
Period.
I do not need someone else ( or their magic algorithm ) to determine if what I'm looking at is:
1) The whole truth
2) A partial truth
3) Not even close to the truth
4) A National Enquirer worthy article
5) Approved for viewing in my country due to the subject matter
For what passes as the News these days ( and the folks who control them ) know this:
I would prefer my information to come to me unfiltered, uncensored, unbiased and sans any sort
of tracking to determine what I am reading or watching at any given time. I will make up my own
mind if I find it factual or otherwise.
It's bad enough I have to read a dozen different news sites ( across several countries ) to get multiple
viewpoints on the same story just to even out the bias since any single source tends to spin it one
way or another depending on the wishes of the parent corporation who happens to own the news
outlet in question.
Just . . . no.
Maybe, if there were even the slightest bit of journalistic integrity left, we would instead focus on
getting the damn facts straight BEFORE releasing the story instead of everyone scrambling to be
the news equivalent of your typical forum " First Post ".
As for relying upon opinionated blogs, Facebook, and the plethora of other news-wanna-be sites out
there, trust what you read and see at your own risk. Just remember their sole function in life is to
get you on their site. Eventually, it will self correct once enough folks figure out the sites are peddling
nothing but bullshit.
They'll simply quit showing up.
Obama's problem is that he pretty much jumps on every sensationalist headline that involves social justice topics without ever bothering to look into it first, making him a highly divisive president.
For example, that kid that supposedly made a clock, only he didn't, he just took one apart, and he did deliberately try to make it look like a bomb. Did Obama give a shit? Nope, instead he just basically labeled his fellow Americans as a bunch of racists, and for no good reason.
Truth is difficult to pin down. In some cases truth is legitimately subjective.
A browser like this would inevitably just be another layer of bias and indirection, so the problem will just become one of "who watches the watchers?".
For example several sites have stated that snopes, traditionally the internet bastion of fact-checking, has a strong political bias.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...
http://www.angrypatriotmovemen...
Whether the people accept the data straight from TV, unverified web sites or a system of so-called fact checkers the underlying problem still exists. People relying on other people to think for them. The best method would be to teach and strive for critical thinking and for people to do some checking of their own, but in our instant gratification based society of today that is unlikely to happen.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Beware the fact-checkers. In 2012 Politifact said the assertion that Obamacare premiums will rise was "Mostly False". This is demonstrably wrong.
Sounds to me like some lefty who doesn't like people thinking differently to him wants to tell unsuspecting users that their favourite sites don't toe the line of the left-wing, liberal agenda, and that they need to be "reeducated".
No thanks.
Even if it were possible to somehow get an unbiased fact engine (and I personally don't believe this is possible yet because all sources of information that would be the pool for this engine are human created), we would still be left with the problem of why?
I really don't believe that people are motivated by facts in any real sense.
Also, fact does not necessarily mean universal truth. For example, it is a fact that the sky is blue. But what if you are color blind? That is a fact that may not be true to you. You can have everyone in the world telling you that the sky is blue... but you know that it isn't. Which is the truth?
All I see this "facts in the browser" thing to be is a power grab to get people to think the same way as some other people.
Look, some people would look at this election and see a country divided. But I don't see it that way. I just see people with different personal truths. Half the population cannot be "wrong" and the other "right". Only different. Different is a good thing.
Quit trying to find technical "solutions" to ideological "problems"....
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Obama constantly speaks untruths. Maybe he should have a fact checker next to him.
Remember that puzzle where there's one guy who always lies, and one guy who always tells the truth, and they look the same? Politics is like that, except it's missing that second guy. (Wow, my .sig is on-topic for once.)
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Most good browsers have this feature built in. You just need to know how to find it:
1. Type 'snopes' into the address bar.
Does it bring up the Snopes website?
2. Type 'Politifact' into your address bar.
Does it bring up the Politifact website?
If you answered yes to these questions, then your browser supports fact-checking natively.
What I would really like to see is some kind of measure of reputability. Not a measure of how much people trust a particular resource, because that turns into a faith-based exercise. But some kind of algorithm that measures the degree to which other sources rely on a particular source of information, and how frequently they reference it relative to other sources. Kind of a PageRank for information sources. It would hardly be a perfect measure, but it would help people learn to assess the source.
If nothing else, it would pull the rug out from under the Macedonian troll site cottage industry.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
I don't see why this was modded down. 'Factcheckers' nowadays tend to either have agendas of their own, or get perceived as such anyway, particularly on topics of history and politics. Web browsers are good enough, and there ain't a need to bloat them further w/ factcheckers. As it is, I hate Microsoft, Apple and Google news apps that forcefeed me their choice of sources - like the BBC or the Guardian, even though I don't live in the UK. I don't need that excrement embedded in web browsers.
Keep things simple, make it an optional plugin. Stop cramming so much bells and whistles into browsers. It's a recipe for slowness, bloat, bugs, and difficulty in changing directions in the future, as too much baggage has to be ported.
Table-ized A.I.
Case in point the idiocy of YouTube's demonetising efforts. Christina Hoff Sommers's videos, Factual Feminist, being modded away because they "offend". Advertising revenue is creating a kind of tyranny already.
Your comment makes it clear that, once more, Betteridge's Law of Headlines is completely correct.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
/thread
I challenge you to name any US mainstream news outlet that compares favourably to the BBC in terms of objectivity and bias.
The BBC may be a dung pile, as the saying goes, but Aunty Beeb grows very good roses.
Everyone knows this.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
no im pointing out the truth.
when cops shot black people in the back, he didn't immediately back the cops. got called divisive.
when a florida man started a fight with a black kid and then killed him, he didn't immediately support Zimmerman. and got called divisive.
the country is literally in the best shape its been in in decades and your moronic conservatives are running around like the country is falling apart, and now you've elected trump, a man who truly is divisive, who is the most openly racist, misogynistic, and otherwise bigoted person to run since David Duke, who is more corrupt and less qualified than Reagan ever was. basically everything you idiots have ever falsely accused Clinton of, Trump actually is guilty of .
no.
the primary opposition to Obama for 8 years has been rooted in his skin color, and conservatives have willfully ignored reality for 8 years.
Obama was not divisive.
Conservatives were, because they couldn't handle having a black guy in the white house.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.