Slashdot Mirror
Reuters Built An Algorithm That Can Identify Real News On Twitter (popsci.com)
Reuters has built an algorithm called News Tracer that flags and verifies breaking news on Twitter. The algorithm weeds through all 500 million tweets that are posted on a daily basis to "sort real news from spam, nonsense, ads, and noise," writes Corinne Iozzio via Popular Science: In development since 2014, reports the Columbia Journalism Review, News Tracer's work starts by identifying clusters of tweets that are topically similar. Politics goes with politics; sports with sports; and so on. The system then uses language-processing to produce a coherent summary of each cluster. What differentiates News Tracer from other popular monitoring tools, is that it was built to think like a reporter. That virtual mindset takes 40 factors into account, according to Harvard's NiemanLab. It uses information like the location and status of the original poster (e.g. is she verified?) and how the news is spreading to establish a "credibility" rating for the news item in question. The system also does a kind of cross-check against sources that reporters have identified as reliable, and uses that initial network to identify other potentially reliable sources. News Tracer can also tell the difference between a trending hashtag and real news. The mix of data points News Tracer takes into account means it works best with actual, physical events -- crashes, protests, bombings -- as opposed to the he-said-she-said that can dominate news cycles.
us to build an AI just to counter his spew of lies. Spew of lies.
Does it vote Democrat, as well?
I bet all their news is the "real" news!
if (article.agenda() != ourAgenda) article.fake = true
Pope Francis got first post on this thread.
Not so hard to develop, just blacklist some click bait key words. This, popular, what and here, without these words any headline is actually newsworthy.
Reuters Built An Algorithm That Can Identify Real News On Twitter
Lies.
I hope it flagged itself.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Does anything on Huff, and WaPo pass?
You know the funniest thing about everyone talking about "fake news"? They make it look like it's only a conservative rag problem. People's memories are so razor short these days, they've already forgotten that The Rolling Stone published literal, fake "news" about a campus rape story, ruined peoples lives, and were sued for 8 (reduced to 3) million dollars.
If people here were half as skeptical as they claim to be, they'd have no respect for conservative AND liberal "journalists." Science demands proof. It doesn't care if the lack-of-data is coming from people you like.
if article.IsReuters() {
article.Fake = false
} else if article.PrimaryTrafficSource() == "Taboola" {
article.Fake = true
}
tweet.isTrue = listOfOurShills.contains(tweet.author) ? true : false
then it probably ain't real news.
My guess is that anything with a Reuters byline will pass.
No need to dance around the question.
All those websites, until recently, have been called conspiracy theory websites, producing nothing else but conspiracy theories.
When those conspiracy theories generating websites ended up at the winning side of the elections, they needed to come up with the new name, for conspiracy theorists were, shall we say, mostly right.
Fake news are formerly conspiracy theories.
P.S. I think NYT and Washington Post, and many others, should look to see who predicted with 98.1% probability of certain recent events.
Think like a reporter? I've met a few, been interviewed. They seem primarily interested in how they can condense a complicated and nuanced issue into one sentence that a third grader might understand and (most importantly) will be entertaining to readers. They typically already have the outline of the story in their head and are not really interested in facts that might disrupt their preconceived ideas. They are only looking for confirmation and a few good quotes.
A biased news company built an algorithm that points out all stories without their bias as fake news.
Just go right to the sources instead. Look at reputable, serious news sources like Reuters, TeleSur, Spiegel etc. and ignore all random tweets from random people.
"Reuters Built An Algorithm That Can Identify Real News On Twitter"
No they haven't. Ask me how I know.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
...anyone can spot the Real News: http://therealnews.com/ ;)
[...] how the news is spreading to establish a "credibility" rating for the news item in question.
I wonder if it takes into account the old saw about how "A lie can travel around the world while the truth is lacing up it's boots."
I am really sick of people misusing the word algorithm.
Reuters did not build an algorithm. They devised an algorithm and then built a system based on that algorithm.
Algorithms are methods... processes... ways of doing things. Algorithms are not implementations. Algorithms are the conceptual steps, not the manifestation of those steps.
If you view the tactics of CREEP as something to emulate then you shouldn't be surprised when people think you're a fucking liar.
they're going so far out of their way to not be biased that they're giving a voice to absolutely apeshit ideas. That's what got us Trump.
What's the old joke? Reality has a liberal bias.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
we've had 1 notable instance of fake liberal news in 20 years and 20 years of fake conservative news (fox).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Is whatever reddit/4chan/youtube tells people to start tweeting.
Should be pretty easy to fake it.
I wonder how such a system can cope when US Secretary of State claims Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. True or false?
Someone's gonna find out very quickly that "real news" filter is just a traffic blocker off anything that doesn't link to "Reuters.com"
Don't post accusing someone of a crime if you don't know wtf you're talking about at such a basic level.
When I was this article my first thought was how the fake news political articles we get from cnn/nbc will only be further highlighted as truth due to garbage in, garbage out effect. Neural networks are only as good as their training program. You can't teach it that fake news sites like cnn are truth and then expect it to correctly judge other sites when a fake news site like cnn or nbc is your training gold standard for truth.
Very interesting idea from a computer science perspective but by this time next year we'll be hearing how "the magical computer algorithm said it was true (from the MSM echo chamber of lies), so it must be true!"
Come back when you get a reality check and exit your echo chamber for a few minutes.
Or an improperly trusted reporter such as Dan Rather.
Sad to say, but FoxNews was less biased and more honest in the last 6 months than CNN, NYTimes, etc. I actually found myself going there first, when I wanted to read news, instead of editorialized opinion pieces traipsing about in the dead flesh of news.
they wrote something which validates what the narrative is and what free thought is. I bet they don't tell you which is which.
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
If this was as good as it supposed to be, it'd put nearly everyone at Reuters out of a job. Their primary product is fake news.
The only thing this will do is use natural language to identify narrative-breaking articles before they can gain traction with the public.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The algorithm weeds through all 500 million tweets that are posted on a daily basis to "sort real news from spam, nonsense, ads, and noise,"
Has it found any, yet?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Everything on Twitter is hate speak! Nothing is real!
Ha
Irrelevant. BOTH are used for evil.
{
return true;
}
captcha : decline
All those "Trump can't possibly win" stories as fake news?
Fake news are hoax news made especially to lie to people. The rolling stone stories was not fake news it was somebody which lied about being raped. That is not the same thing. Again, if I pretend I was raped by a NFL quarterback, and give an interview to CNN, it isn't fake news, because they do the interview in good faith. That is the hinging point : the publisher publish in good faith - at worst you can say they are a crap journal because they did not check properly. But if CNN start publishing a news that republican have a special club where they fiddle kiddies, and manage to get it spread, while fully knowing it is wrong, it is fake news.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
As far as I can tell this whole fake news thing started because of an article claiming Trump would end up with more popular votes in the election. I read that article and would probably fall within the category of people where it may reinforce their political biases. Yet, it was so obviously wishful thinking anyone with any degree of critical thinking would see it for what it was. Its primary source was twitter, and it said so right up front. If using twitter to determine popular vote counts makes sense to most people then we have some serious issues. It did use some common misunderstandings of how votes are counted in the case of absentee ballots, but these were all easily debunked a little later on. I think most people who read the article quickly figured it out. The problem (I think) was many people did not read the article. They just sent it along on their Social media feeds which tricked a bunch of other search algorithms. On Slashdot we sometimes don't even read the summary, why would you expect average Joe to dig into a headline that already confirms their world view.
Poor A/C FauxNews is a painless form of Lobotomization.
The first algorithm simply removes all New York Times articles as fake news.
I'm guessing Reuters defines "real news" as anything reported by Reuters. Everything else is of course "fake news". Pretty simple algo, really.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The facts are with him, not you...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
They've had it for years. The so called "All the news that fits." Fits their bullshit agenda.
How about Rolling Stone out there with their bullshit fraternity gang rape story. The laws are so weak they almost got away with it.
that is owned by the rothschilds/rockerfellers for a hundred years, along with the associated press?
"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.
I'm promoting more "fake news" than ever, and it's growing wildly taking market share from parasites
I was hoping your link was going to report on the number of lies told by each network in the last year, rather than a popularity contest.
To me, it was the election results that defied the leftist narrative that sold me on how much you can't trust MSM. The way Black lives matter is spun. The lack of fact checking that leads to riots.
When the narrative takes precedence over reality, all semblance of credibility is lost.
... then you don't belong on Slashdot. You belong in the ministry of truth.
For this to be of any use, the criteria needs to be posted publicly. For example, very little proof has been proffered regarding Russia's supposed involvement in hacking the DNC. And many say it looks more like forces inside the U.S. intelligence community.
So how does this Reuter's tool handle such a case? Claiming that a politically appointed security chief of the government states something, therefore it must be factual or true is a very poor measure. What if a Trump appointed security chief states something. Will that be substantial enough for proof? Or will this really just be a tool that says "those articles that think like us will be deemed true, and those that do not will be deemed false"
This pretty much sums up the Al-Gore-ithm.
Was having the Democrat party engage in the largest mass voter disenfranchisement and fraud in U.S. history in order to push the most corrupt and corporate connected politician to ever run for POTUS.
THAT is what got us Trump.
We can label CNN, ABC, Fox, MSNBC, HuffPo pretty much ALL fake news outlets.
I am referring to the analysis where FauxNews made you more stupid than before you started listening to it; that is fact.