Slashdot Mirror
Google Executives Are Floating a Plan To Fight Fake News on Facebook and Twitter (qz.com)
Fake news, bots, and propaganda were hot topics at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos last month, and Google executives there floated an intriguing idea to some fellow attendees -- what if the company could tell users whether information is trustworthy before they shared it on social networks like Facebook and Twitter? From a report: Representatives from Google and its parent company Alphabet eagerly discussed how the company can play a greater role in reducing misleading information online, several Davos attendees involved in and briefed on these conversations told Quartz. A notification system, perhaps via an optional extension for Google's Chrome browser, was an idea that these people said was broached more than once. Such a browser-based system controlled by Google could alert users on Facebook's or Twitter's websites when they're seeing or sharing a link deemed to be false or untrustworthy.
Right now, this appears to be merely an idea company executives are discussing, not a product in development.
Any who will determine is it is trustworthy, let me guess... AI...
Those who post fake news already know it is untrustworthy, but they do it anyway because they like/agree with it.
This is active interference in another company's business operations.
Of course, it's good that they're censoring "fake news" because as the gatekeepers, their responsibility is to make sure that people are properly informed with the correct news. It would be bad to allow chaos and divisiveness from intentionally false information.
FTFY
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Facebook and Twitter are not News sites, or even aggregators, in the first place.
To Google, fake news is anything they don't agree with. As James Damore's memo showed, Google have no interest in the truth, they just want to push their own agenda.
Google isn't remotely trustworthy, and certainty shouldn't be trusted to tell us what news is fake.
Research shows people who are told something is fake tend to believe it even more.
Maybe just aggregate cnn and Snopes, that should do the trick! Fact check false!
Faux.
The james damore case clearly shows us that google is not like a computer system that neutrally handles data, it has a specific narrative which is emotional and based on current political leanings and the soft 'gut' feeling of the population.
Would we be seeing things which google does not like, say perhaps that some of their hardware was being manufactured by slave labor et al? Or would this suddenly become 'fake news'
The problem is not really fake news, the problem is the lack of anything like a credible media source. Everyone has cross mergered to the point where what we see and hear as 'news' is generally only the things we are allowed to see.
See for example the court case in which fox news bought out WTVT and then buried a story about Monstanto's posilac product and the harmful effects it had on the animals and on anyone drinking it (hint, it is on the market, will remain so, and is not safe to consume)
Now try and look around at any major news corp that has mentioned that monsanto's roundup weed killer is also a known active carcinogen (again, on the market, not safe, will remain that way).
We are already living in the age of fake news from our highest sources. This whole thing just stinks of a way to cripple what little independent media is left so that the rich can write the narrative of our reality. I believe russians probably did purchase and attempt to sway public opinion on matters if only to create a divide, I also believe that corporations do this as a matter of daily operations like one might take a solid dump in the morning.
There is no cure for this situation save one which is unappealing....we need to start to kill the rich similar to the french revolution. The only reason we have rights today the way we recognize them is because an angry mob started to cut rich peoples heads off until an agreement of fair treatment was made. You may know such agreements as the bill of human rights, principle of equality, separation of church and state, congress and/or a group of representatives of the people, removal of the feudal system, etc. These effects rippled across the planet to give us much of what we know today as modern civil society.
Again, unappealing, but beneficial without a doubt. Perhaps the time has come again to remind those in power who we are
.. my ass.
I don't want anybody deciding what is news to ME. Are we in a "new situation" with digital giants? I do not think so, just more giant, faster. "Reading the Paper" SHOULD be taught in Middle School.
And as a reminder; 9-11 was orchestrated by Dick Cheney and his neocon cabal.
what could possibly go wrong there?
Google CEO Eric Schmidt: "We're not arguing for censorship, we're arguing just take it off the page. Put it somewhere else. Make it harder to find."
Nobody trusts Google to accurately flag news as accurate or inaccurate. Most people expect Google to flag news that is counter to their preferred narrative (that there are 293 genders, all of precisely equal ability, not determined by genetics but by choice, but sexual preference is not a choice, etc.) as not trustworthy and news that is supportive of their narrative as trustworthy. In fact, having Google flag something as "not approved by Google" is a sure way to lend credence to the article in the eyes of many. The fact that they keep trying to figure out how to more emphatically label things is proof that they just don't understand that it's Google people have already flagged as not trustworthy. Google expended any trust people had in their ability to be impartial and objective long ago, but especially when they made it clear that Google employees that express unapproved views will be fired.
as long as tech companies continue to think they can fix human nature with software, humans will continue to behave as we have.
Funny how only companies that supported Hillary for President are the ones screaming about fake news and trying to discredit anything that doesn't agree with their selected view point.
**Wrong Think is Wrong, how can we nudge the unwashed masses away from Wrong Think? Let's create annoying pop ups that tell them they are having Wrong Think! They will love it because they are stupid and we are smart!**
When Mother Jones, Salon, The Huffington Post, CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post start getting flagged as fake news, they will scrap the program and say it didn't work that well because reasons...
All the big news vendors from both sides have been caught pushing fake news from time to time. FOX, CNN, MSNBC etc. etc.... Will those get flagged as well?
We'll fight bias with even more bias! That'll fix it!
In my case, I've already solved seeing fake news on Facebook and Twitter.
For people that are dumb enough to get their news from Facebook or Twitter, I'm not really sure it matters how fake it is or not.
The problem is that many people have mistaken their opinions for facts, even when plain old reality directly contradicts their opinions. The whole movement to treat gender dysphoria as something other than a mental disorder is a perfect example. Somehow seeing yourself as fatter than you are (anorexia) is non-controversially viewed as a disorder, but seeing yourself as a male when you have ovaries and a vagina is seen as completely normal. Suggesting that it's a disorder not much different than anorexia is treated as sacrilege.
So, there are "facts" aren't really facts at all, and lawsuits reveal that Google has a culture of promoting things that aren't facts as fact. They've also demonstrated that diverse opinions are not tolerated in their organization, which is their right. However, it disqualifies them as any competent or credible arbiter of facts.
I'm sure Google will start with removing truly fake news, but they will quickly slide into removing anything that reflects badly on Google or the people they support. They have already proven to put ideology first.
Modern journalism is about covering the important stories... with a pillow until they stop moving.
Sadly, you didn't. Facts no longer matter in today's political climate.
What one side can proof, the other side just calls "left wing conspiracist bigly failing to dispute blue collar gut-feeling truth with FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS!".
It's the real-life version of the three wise monkeys.
You mean Hillary! didn't have classified data on an illegal email server?
You mean Hillary! didn't exchange emails with President Obama on that server?
You mean the FBI - the same FBI that illegally spied on Martin Luther King for YEARS - didn't cover that up?
Social media is a cesspool of stupid, cowardice and horrible people, granted there are really good people in the mix but the a-holes are drowning out the good to the point it would be best to get rid of social media all together.
Are you talking about like the left's pet theory about some sort of Russian influence on the Presidential election, which they still can't produce any evidence for? Or maybe you're talking about their efforts to normalize a mental disorder called gender dysphoria by claiming gender is not biological (as if nature/God/deity asks you whether you'd like a penis or vagina before birth). Maybe you're talking about the left's absolute refusal to accept the reality of racial disparities in anything not being the result of a vast white conspiracy? Somehow I doubt you're talking about any of those. I suspect what you mean is that when people will not entertain your delusions, you believe facts no longer matter.
Even if they initially were trustworthy, should they really be given permission and authority to do such a thing? What if they say a news story is "guilty" of Fake News and later it is found "innocent". Or, does someone more "Central" than Google decide such things? If so, shouldn't the same questions be asked of them?
Having been a juror in a case where there was something of a "He said She said" issue, I have to bring up the question that was brought up among us jurors. Is it better to take the chance of punishing the innocent or of letting the guilty go?
Especially in the case of news in a free country, I believe, as Thomas Jefferson said, it is better to put up with some of the inconveniences of greater freedom than the problems of too little freedom. Free speech should not be punished. Those easily upset by beliefs counter to their own would feel very different if their speech was the side harassed.
Neither Google nor Facebook nor Twitter should have authority or power to block any of this news. And if they do, even they can be overturned when the right situation or technology comes out.
Executives coming up with innovative ideas! Let's apply them right away! What could possibly go wrong? If more executives had their voices heard, there wouldn't be problems in the world! I want an executive in my life! Anyone knows where can I get a discount one? LOL.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
it's pretty genius.
pity it's destroying the usa.
worse, it worked so good the "left" is now doing the same shit and it's getting to be real hard to tell wtf is going on.
shit, even the bbc has lost it's will to report on absolutely everything from a neutral perspective. what i find most interesting is the stories that sites leave off. stuff politico howls about isn't even on fox and vice versa. Same for the bbc, there's no guarantee you'll be informed on all the important things happening in the world. some big stuff gets straight ignored.
The only way to solve the problem of false information is to beef up the education system and teach people critical thinking and how to evaluate sources. ANY other attempt becomes propaganda based simply on the fact that the consumer of information is not individually evaluating the information but having someone else tell them if it is true or not.
FFS, Teach people to think, stop telling them how to think!
I see your kingdoms, and raise you a papacy. All hail Pope Eric.
Please stop using this. Lugenpress (lying press) is the same term from Nazi Germany. Drumf has even normalized the vocabulary of hatred to the point that Slashdot is adopting it. Sad.
And another huge swath of the populace has been convinced by MSNBC and other sources that facts are opinions blah blah blah
and that blah blaah vast Russian Comsipiracy! blah blah blah
blah blah blah
WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!
They have to be told what's correct and what sources are valid to use in discussions that we will also monitor and censor as needed.
WHY IN THE HELL ARE ANY OF YOU AGREEING WITH ANY OF THIS JUST BECAUSE, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT GOES WITH YOUR PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS?!
Would you agree with this if Faux News Search Engine was dictating the policy from a monopolistic position?
Is to start placing bounties on sites that run fake news.
In today's news market, it's a series of programs deciding what to put on your pages. Highly tailored to fit into your bubble of chosen topics and viewpoints.
So place a bounty on fake news like a bug bounty. For the sake of discussion, let's call it a $5,000 penalty for running a fake story. The bounty goes to whomever first proves it's fake with checkable facts and sources. The bounty is paid by the site that displayed the story.
Now you have incentivised folks to think about the news, and to dig into the correctness of stories. At the same time you have incentivised sites to stop posting fake news. This will also spawn a cottage industry of folks who become very good at fact checking and maybe we'll find a few companies we can trust.
Start off with a bounty value, and keep raising it until the desired results are met,
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
Instead of trying to uncover government abuses of power, now that the abusers are "progressives", we now have a press that's mostly trying to defend and cover up the use of the entire US intelligence-gathering capability to spy on a rival political campaign.
And Google is doing all it can to promote this "progressive" campaign to misinform and hide information.
FISA-gate Is Scarier than Watergate
How does FISA-gate compare to Watergate and Iran-Contra?
Once again, an administration is being accused of politicizing government agencies to further agendas, this time apparently to gain an advantage for Hillary Clinton in the run-up to an election.
There is also the same sort of government resistance to releasing documents under the pretext of “national security.”
There is a similar pattern of slandering congressional investigators and whistleblowers as disloyal and even treasonous.
There is the rationale that just as the Watergate break-in was a two-bit affair, Carter Page was a nobody.
But there is one huge (and ironic) difference. In the current FISA-gate scandal, most of the media and liberal civil libertarians are now opposing the disclosure of public documents. They are siding with those in the government who disingenuously sought surveillance to facilitate the efforts of a political campaign.
This time around, the press is not after a hated Nixon administration. Civil libertarians are not demanding accountability from a conservative Reagan team. Instead, the roles are reversed.
Barack Obama was a progressive constitutional lawyer who expressed distrust of the secretive “Deep State.” Yet his administration weaponized the IRS and surveilled Associated Press communications and a Fox News journalist for reporting unfavorable news based on supposed leaks.
Obama did not fit the past stereotypes of right-wing authoritarians subverting the Department of Justice and its agencies. Perhaps that is why there was little pushback against his administration’s efforts to assist the campaign of his likely replacement, fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Progressives are not supposed to destroy requested emails, “acid wash” hard drives, spread unverified and paid-for opposition research among government agencies, or use the DOJ and FBI to obtain warrants to snoop on the communications of American citizens.
FISA-gate may become a more worrisome scandal than either Watergate or Iran-Contra. Why? Because our defense against government wrongdoing — the press — is defending such actions, not uncovering them. Liberal and progressive voices are excusing, not airing, the excesses of the DOJ and FBI.
Apparently, weaponizing government agencies to stop a detested Donald Trump by any means necessary is not really considered a crime.
There's possibly a way to do this without taking a side on the accuracy of the information: to flag information with a partisanship score.
Google knows the distribution of information consumed, and it can probably already do enough sentiment analysis to score cliques on partisanship. Google definitely knows how to extract the trigger words from the discourse (subtype: click bait) and it could easily algo up a trigger score, too. However, Google will lay such a number bare not in my lifetime.
Failing a trigger score, an ad hominem score might be effective, instead. The scores can either be assigned to the documents, or to the primary cliques consuming the documents.
Turns out the distribution of an item is primary meta-data pertaining to its appropriate consumption.
Snopes about was Trump or his campaign wiretapped before the election. They pretty much list it as false.
FISA warrant gotten on Carter Page Oct 21. Allows wiretapping of Page, his contacts, and their contacts, which includes all of Trump campaign. I know the day, who it was on, who signed off on it, and the judge that approved it. Snopes couldn't seem to figure that out, but they are great fact checkers?
Snopes is completely wrong on one of the most political articles with completely proven facts to back up how it is false.
I just picked that one because I assumed they would be incorrect, and was not surprised. I haven't seen an accurate truthful Snopes in about 5 years now.
... not sure we need commissars for it though.
{the scene: Myrtle and Ester, gossiping over their fence}
Myrtle: Hey Ester, did you hear the news? Hillary Clinton ran a private email server out of her bathroom, so she wouldn't have to use official government email!
Ester: Oh really? Well I think ...
{popping out of bushes}Ivan: Excuse me, comrades! Ha, no, see, this is not "news" as you say, this is "fake news"!
Ivan: Let me provide you with real news story about the perfectly legal activities of most excellent Secretary Clinton! This news has been verified by current federal executive, so you know it is unbiased and true!
Part of the reason no one trusts NBC, CNN, etc. anymore is that half the stories they run with have no cited sources, just BS like "said one source with inside knowledge who was not allowed to speak on the record". And sometimes those leaks are just that - BS fed to reporters too lazy to check out the stories they were handed.
So before "Big News" gets to complain about "Alt News" running with poor sourcing, "Big News" needs get their own house in order first.
Somehow seeing yourself as fatter than you are (anorexia) is non-controversially viewed as a disorder, but seeing yourself as a male when you have ovaries and a vagina is seen as completely normal. Suggesting that it's a disorder not much different than anorexia is treated as sacrilege.
That is because biologists and psychologists disagree with your laymen interpretation of the similarity between these seemingly similar conditions. A mental disorder has a precise definition, and simply being abnormal does not automatically qualify. The American Psychiatric Association did at one time use the term "gender identity disorder", but as their understanding of this condition improved they changed it to "gender dysphoria". This is still a medical condition, just like being near sighted is, but it is no longer considered a disorder (which has a precise definition).
The APA still considers gender dysphoria as something which needs to be treated, but the treatment does not include ignoring the patient's gender identity. Treatments such as hormone therapy and surgery are more common.
These really are facts, not opinions, because they are backed up by decades of research and clinical practice. We will never know with 100% certainty what the best course of treatment is, just like no fact can ever be 100% verified, but our current understanding of gender disphoria comes from a significant scientific effort.
You on the other hand use your laymen understanding of the psychiatric profession to form opinions which are not based on the wealth of evidence which shows your opinions to be false.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Let's suppose that Google goes ahead and makes a "Fake News Alert" Chrome plugin. Further, let's assume that they don't abuse their position (as someone else guessed they would by marking anti-Google posts as "fake" regardless of the truth) or engage in any partisan bias (marking true posts from one side as fake simply because Google workers tend to support the other side). Would this type of thing even be effective?
I'd argue that it wouldn't. This would be an optional plugin. You'd need to purposefully go and get the plugin. The only people who did that would be people who care whether a news source is fake or not. This would likely exclude almost everyone who posts fake news items. They don't care about truth as much as they care that the story fits their narrative. Even if they installed the plugin, they'd start seeing stories they agreed with marked as fake. Then, they'd either have to change their minds or just accuse Google as being part of the "establishment deep state conspiracy" (or something like that). Like Nigerian scammer victims, these people wouldn't want to admit that they were suckered by fake news in the past so they'd go with the "this news is real, Google's lying" explanation
While I commend Google for trying to figure out a way to fight stories that are completely fake, an optional plugin won't do anything.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Google will implement the goals of Operation Mockingbird even further.
How can anyone trust such an evil company like Google?
Such collusion among monopolies to control the flow of information should have been denounced by all Slashdotters, and attracted attention of the Justice Department enforcing anti-trust laws...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Not sure which is worse; government censored "news", or leftist techie executive censored "news".
"We play both kinds of music here: country, and western!"
Unless they are going to buy Facebook and Twitter and then shut them down like a good product, this will not stop on these sites.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
It's not from the left. The CIA, FBI, and NSA have ALL said that Russia interfered in out election.
Change your news source.
The expression 'fake news' is actually quite wonderful as a mis-director of attention. Saying a news story is fake news is not actually a claim that the news story is false, just that it shouldn't be a news story. The implication that is universally taken when the target of a story saying 'fake news' is that the target is denying the events.
Similarly, a statement prefaced by "If anyone took offence to my action/statement, I apologise" isn't an apology, because there's no acknowledgement of fault.
Those "other sources" are CNN, MSNBC, ABC and others on that side of the political spectrum.
Bearing in mind that "fake news" is just another euphemism for public relations (PR) and propaganda:
Will Google also apply these algorithms of "truthfulness" and what they consider to be misleading to online advertising? And will they also censor "fake news" circulated by elected officials on topics such as climate change, evolution, and the "War against Christmas"?
Don't you find it ironic that the world's biggest and most powerful advertising and PR agencies, e.g. Google, Facebook, and Twitter, are claiming to be reliable arbiters of truth? I mean, it's not as if they get paid $billions for prioritising certain messages over others by their clients, is it?
It looks like we're going to have Silicon Valley executives deciding which is "good" fake news and which is "bad."
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Twitter handle LatinaPatriotUSA11222 with 58,000 tweens is actually a Russian bot they will refuse to believe it.
Are you aware that there's an on-going investigation into collusion? They're investigating to see if there was collusion and if any laws were broken. Even if you ignore the meeting in Trump Tower attended by Russians and Trumps son, Kushner, et al, on the promise of getting "dirt" on Clinton, and GP's drunken blabbing about Russians having "dirt" on Clinton to an Australian diplomat that sparked the collusion investigation, and if you ignore the RNC/DNC funded Steele dossier, even a dope has to notice that Trump has insulted everyone on the planet except Putin.
I'm in favor of waiting to see what Mueller finds. Then we'll all know. If he says there was no collusion and no laws broken I'll accept it.
Who will even be able to determine what is Fake News? And who will trust them to make this determination? I have noticed several major lies from all News sources. Lies being everything from total misrepresentations or distortions to telling only part of the truth or ignoring inconvenient facts.
Yes, the same people who lied to FISA courts to obtain illegal warrants to spy on political opponents are saying, "It was the Russians!!!"
Are you really that fucking stupid?
The News has always been manipulated.
What has he media's panties in a bunch is the fact that the ability to do so is no longer limited to them.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
When Trump insulted Kim Jong Un, you had a meltdown that he was starting WW3. Now your panties are in a knot because he doesn't insult Russia?
Are you purposefully this fucking dumb, or is it something you were just born with?
Err what? You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
Gender dysphoria is classified exactly the same as schizophrenia and anorexia. It is even thought to be a subclass of schizophrenia, as over 60% of people with GD also have been diagnosed with both.
The only difference in how they are treated is political correctness. It's okay to mutilate your penis, because society has been shamed into pretending your mutilated penis is a vagina. We're not to the point of telling schizoids that the voices are real, but you can bet that comes next.
Gender dysphoria is classified exactly the same as schizophrenia and anorexia. It is even thought to be a subclass of schizophrenia, as over 60% of people with GD also have been diagnosed with both.
Citation needed. Even this paper discussing links between GD and schizophrenia shows either a very slight or more likely no correlation.
Gender dysphoria is simply not known to be a subclass of schizophrenia, and you are talking out of your ass.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Let's ass/u/me the tech works. (Ok, hypothesize.)
I'm trying to understand how a user would be excited or interested in this. "You're about to step in it by posting something really stupid which will damage your personal reputation among everyone who knows you, covering you in a shroud of dishonor and making everyone whisper and giggle about you behind your back. Are you sure you want to make a fool of yourself?" Is it like that, but more charitably phrased?
I would think that most of the people who share the kind of bullshit that this would detect, know it's bullshit, and bullshitting is part of their enjoyment. You do it wittingly.
And in the unlikely event of sharing bullshit unwittingly, if they're told it's bullshit, they'd get mad at the software and tell it "no Goggle, yuor fake news!!!1"
Can anyone explain to me the point of view of a person who would actually want this? If it's actually someone conscientious who is really trying to avoid errors, I'd think they'd already make decisions themselves prior to figuratively putting their name on the bottom. By the time the plugin or whatever warns htem, they've already made up their minds.
Am I wrong? Raise your hand if you think, as a user, that this is a neat idea (and totally putting aside concerns about the system's accuracy, Google's intent, etc).
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
This is not an exaggeration. Look it up.
We can't allow these pseudo-intellectual goons in Palo Alto to control the flow of information.
Knowledge is power. If they control the narrative, they can reshape civilization.
Ask yourself: do you trust people like Mark Zuckerberg and Eric Schmidt to reshape civilization?
Theyâ(TM)re just going to mark anything that they have written as âoefakeâ
Think of their poor unwashed (and unshowered) masses, yearning to distort truth free, consigned to the file 13 of history!
For if truth is objective then they too shall pass away in a puff of logic.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
another ignorer of truth, you fucking idiot
you shouldn't procreate
There should never be gatekeepers that control information to such an extent. Intentionally false or not. The foundation of democracy is that people can be their own gatekeepers of information and they can act in their own self interest.
I am not saying it is perfect but the moment we cede to any kind of informational gatekeeper we cede power to that entity. We have to trust that people can view all kinds of information and decide on their own what is best for them. If we cannot do that then this experiment has run its course.
You cede to OP that "liberal billionaires" are the gatekeepers to information giving them power over society.
Putting aside the concerns about Google acting as the gatekeeper for this, the far right has already shown us that they don't care. People who commonly consume this crap will see the warning, scream "Fake news!" and/or "Liberal conspiracy!" and visit the link anyway. I've even heard right wingers label Snopes as fake news for disproving the fake news that they want to hear.
Fake news isn't the risk, The real risk is driving the narrative by censoring that which doesn't conform to the narrative.
Read the news in China and Russia. It's all true, it just omits that which is not allowed to be thought. Read the international news, and you'll realize that in spite of the rhetoric, Fox News is center left based on what is deliberately omitted.
History has shown that when the powerful determine what information is disseminated it always ends in a better educated populace who are able to determine the truth. People become so able because when there is only one story being told there's only one truth to be known. Everything else is superfluous.
While it's true not everything is black and white, the problem with sites like politifact is, after reviewing the facts, the final judgment of their meter is still subjective.
I don't care about the "final judgement of their meter". I care about the fact that they cite sources that I can check myself.
I've seen evidence of bias in their final judgments before, but the coffin nail for their objective credibility was, for me, when they rated Michele Obama's statement "slaves built the White House", as a very positive "Mostly True". Their own research concluded that slaves were used to quarry the raw stone that was used to form the bricks of the building, which were further cut, refined, and placed by skilled masons. Slaves also did much of the white washing at the end. However, the rest of the labor were freemen, white and black, as well as European contractors: Architects designed the building. Masons carved and fitted the bricks (probably the bulk of the building aspect). Carpenters built much of the structure as well. Glass, marble, and tile workers did their thing. Skilled labor collectively did most of the building, yet her statement excludes them in totality.
OK. And, how do you happen to know that? Oh: you know it because you read the article! (which says exactly what you just said-- you are quoting them.)
So, you're really telling me you yourself personally use politifact as an unbiased source of facts. That's ironic. You don't want other people to use it, but you use it yourself.
Equating the quarrying of stone to "building the white house" is like claiming that Home Depot built your house, because that's where you got your building supplies from. Or claiming the people who painted your house built it. Her declaration was also slightly misleading in that the White House did not force anyone to directly work for free, the gov't paid for everything - the question is whether slave owners who got paid bothered to share it with the slaves or not. From what I can gather, some did, though I doubt their slaves had any say in whether they wanted to do the job or not!
and your source for this is.... Politifact.
In any case, the picture comes across as the country forcing slaves to build the White House, and without compensation, much like how we used to believe the pyramids were built. This is simply inaccurate and should have rated a Mostly False or maybe a Partly True at best.
So my judgment is, no, they do not do a good enough job when it comes to the bottom line, they let their bias affect their final score.
Interestingly, they have an article discussing the objections to their rating of "true" for that story.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
That's cute that you insinuate that only one side of the political spectrum plays loose with facts when in reality it's a widespread problem across the entire political spectrum. Look at the argument on gun control for instance. People still cite the "Fact" that guns kill x number of people while ignoring that y number of people killed are suicides and that the suicide rate in the US isn't higher than other countries and that y is a very high percentage of x. They'll then take this misleading "fact" and build entire worldviews on it and come up with "solutions" to problems that don't exist while ignoring other actual problems staring them in the face.
Snopes about was Trump or his campaign wiretapped before the election. They pretty much list it as false.
they do not. If you actuallty read the article you're citing, you'd note that it discusses the claim and the evidence for it, but does not rate it either true nor false.
https://www.snopes.com/2017/03/04/trump-accuses-obama-of-tapping-phones/
The closest thing to such a conclusion is the statement "the President’s tweets offered no documentation or evidence for the charges he was leveling at his predecessor in the White House." Saying that "the president didn't offer documentation or evidence" is not the same as saying it's false.
FISA warrant gotten on Carter Page Oct 21. Allows wiretapping of Page, his contacts, and their contacts, which includes all of Trump campaign. I know the day, who it was on, who signed off on it, and the judge that approved it. Snopes couldn't seem to figure that out, but they are great fact checkers?
So, you're complaining that they didn't include information released in the Nunes memo that wasn't released until eleven months after they wrote the article? Really, they can't. This was about as fair as it could be: they rated it neither true nor false, but pointed out that there wasn't any documentation, which was true at the time
Snopes is completely wrong on one of the most political articles with completely proven facts to back up how it is false.
It didn't rate the statement either true or false. It was, in fact, excruciatingly accurate as to what was available at the time,
I just picked that one because I assumed they would be incorrect, and was not surprised. I haven't seen an accurate truthful Snopes in about 5 years now.
You haven't yet cited an untruthful one.
Let's do the experiment; I'm curious. Try picking one at random: https://www.snopes.com/random/ and tell me whether it's true or false.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Right, and pretty much any truly-interesting political statement is going to be about what strategy is best. And what strategy is best, depends on what your goals and values are. They're totally subjective.
Imagine a political statement like "the federal reserve should raise [or lower, take your pick] the interest rate by 0.25%." You can't tell someone else whether or not that's true or false for them. At best you can tell them whether or not it's a good idea for achieving what you want.
To be fair: neither snopes nor politifact fact checks opinions. None of the examples you made up are the kinds of things either one runs an article factchecking. They fact check only the things expressed as facts.
There is a saying "you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." I agree with that.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
citation missing.
They know it is fake, but they like it so they let it slide. People who know it is fake stay silent.
The other day I came across an old gentleman in a party spouting some nonsense "all the laws of thermodynamics are in in Bhagwat Gita". Some kind of stretched argument based on very generous interpretation of metallic (i.e. malleable and ductile) sentences equating entropy with chaos with degeneration. Almost everyone around knew it was non sense. But, why make a fool out of that guy publicly? Harmless, its not that he is advocating bombing or beheading. Politely nod and move on to the next topic, on the pros and cons buying condos as investment properties..
But I could see in other circles similar arguments advocating superiority of our in group moves on to denigrating out groups and then slide towards blaming the out group and then someone saying, "some one should do something" and then on to "you should do something" to "do something violent"...
What keeps fake news going is the silence of the people who know it is fake, people who have the credibility and credentials of being in the in-group. There is nothing google can do about it.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Are you talking about like the left's pet theory about some sort of Russian influence on the Presidential election, which they still can't produce any evidence for?
It's not from the left. The CIA, FBI, and NSA have ALL said that Russia interfered in out election.
And George W. Bush.
https://www.apnews.com/fb98faa8f69b4135a9a866e0b61a6593/George-W.-Bush-says-Russia-meddled-in-2016-US-election
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/08/george-w-bush-clear-evidence-russians-meddled-election/318620002/
https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2018-02-08/russia-meddled-in-us-election-george-w-bush-says
Change your news source.
I don't care about the "final judgement of their meter". I care about the fact that they cite sources that I can check myself.
Well good for you. Atta boy. But most people look at that meter as the final word. They use it in their arguments and to form their opinion.
I'd be interested in your data supporting your statement as to how "most people" read fact check sites.
But, if you modified your statement to say "the information and citations in the body of the article are useful fact-checking, but the final judgement of their meter is subjective," I wouldn't disagree.
OK. And, how do you happen to know that? Oh: you know it because you read the article! (which says exactly what you just said-- you are quoting them.) So, you're really telling me you yourself personally use politifact as an unbiased source of facts. That's ironic. You don't want other people to use it, but you use it yourself.
...
Originally yes, I did read what they had to say.
The important part is not that you read what they had to say, but that you then quoted the information you got from them. You are saying they are not a reliable source... but turns out you in fact do use them as a reliable source.
...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Please, Google. Stop it.
The Steele Dossier was never funded by Republicans. The Washington Free Beacon funded general research into all the Republican candidates, funding which stopped when Trump clenched the nomination.
The fake Steele Dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC through the Perkins Coie law firm.
...what you mean is "damaging to the Democratic Party, so Four Pinocchios."
A huge swath of the populace have been convinced by [mainstream, corporate-funded media] that facts are opinions...
FTFY
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The accuracy of human's ability to detect fake news can be correllated with cognitive ability. Typically we look at the quality of the writing, formality of the language, citations, past knowledge of author or outlet, past knowledge of named sources and other qualities old fashioned real journalists and editors are well aware of.
So instead of google rank purely by citation, create a Bayesian lie detector. Set the output to True and throw a math or physics textbook at a ML training network. Give it some weather and other verifiable predictions from the past which are verifiable.
Then set it to False and send it excepts from the Enquirer, Star, Onion.
Finally, send it text from trumptwitterarchive and whitehouse.gov and stand out of the way!
Captain Kirk: Everything Harry tells you is a lie. Remember that. Everything Harry tells you is a lie.
Harry Mudd: Listen to this carefully, Norman. I am lying.
Norman the android: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie. You lie. You tell the truth. But you cannot for. Illogical! Illogical! Please explain. (Smoke comes out of Norman's head.)
Fake news isn't the risk
Read the news in China and Russia. It's all true [...]
Fox News is center left
Someone mod this comrade +1, Funny!
This being optional is the best case scenario.
Imagine this was ingrained in these servives. Even if you still assume they won't abuse their position and won't be partisan (hahahaha but yeah, we'll go with "complete denial of human nature" for argument's sake) then they still have the problem of not being able to define, let alone automatically recognise, what is "real" and what is "fake" news. So they'll do the usual trick of doing something that doesn't meet the criteria and claiming success anyway, and now you just have broken algorithms distorting people's view of the world.
This is whats known as a false equivalence, if you can't tell the difference you've drunk the koolaid.
On only one side of the political spectrum have the news agencies effectively been PR for a political party.
Yes, thanks to Wikileaks for informing us of that.
Arguments about leftists remind me of this:
There is no left (Score:5, Interesting), Feb 13, 2016
by rsilvergun (571051)
The owner class is hard, hard right. Like Robber baron grade hard right. The workers are left on social issues, but a lot are still hard right on the economy.
That's sort of the problem. There are lots of folks who are left wing socially (pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, pro-choice, etc) but get real right wing real fast when they think they're taxes are going up. Our Media is left wing on social issues but hard right on economics. Free Trade, Trickle Down economics and Austerity are practically gospel in American media.
Part of the problem is folks look at just about every expense that isn't food as taxes. I've caught lots of folks doing it. Insurance? Tax. Phone Bill? Tax. etc, etc. The other problem is that after the Iraqi War Americans aren't seeing good returns on their taxes. Literally Trillions of wealth was just handed to a lucky few in exchange for nothing. We've let large scale corruption slide for so long that folks have lost confidence in the gov't. They've also forgotten what America was like before the Feds stepped in and started preventing super fund sites from happening (Flint Michigan Water Supply anyone?).
The other problem is Bill Clinton. He moved the country hard right so he could forge an alliance to get into the prez office. Again, left on social issues hard right on the economy. Trump brought up Tariffs but made it a point not to use the "T" word. What's funny is watching all the folks out there who know something is wrong but can't figure out what to do about it pushing Trump and Sanders up in the polls. It's gonna be funnier when Rubio or Bush gets the election despite popular vote [note this was written early 2016] thanks to hard right stuff like Citizens United.
Oh, and the colleges have been moving hard right too. Where do you think those $10,000/semester tuition bills came from?
mfwright@batnet.com
Facebook and Twitter are not News sites, or even aggregators, in the first place.
Facebook and Twitter are not News sites, or even aggregators, in the first place.
Google funded by the CIA since the beginning..they now own youtube.
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e
> In October a Washington post article showed that while it was originally funded in 2015 by Republican donors, the Clinton campaign began funding the research in 2016 as opposition research.
Odd, I'm not seeing updates on Snopes Can you point me to the article I might have missed? Also, that AP report saying it was originally funded by the Washington Free Beacon was later *retracted* from what I saw, though it was widely passed around. You can see here for further information on that topic. Feel free to check their sources, as well.
So you might need even more fact checking, no? Feel free to do the same to me! I'm sure there are things I don't know and I look forward to any evidence you have which I have not seen.
I think most of the ACs today are just ass speaking.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Nothing to say to rebut my points? ... spoken like a true AC...
Why don't you just say "oh yeah?" or "sez you!" It would be every bit as meaningful and useful as what you posted.
There are literally hundreds of papers, and an entire subbranch of psychology dedicated to exactly the thing you just said doesn't exist. You are an absolute and complete fucking imbecile. Seriously... Shut the fuck up.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/schizort/2014/463757/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924933815313663
Not executives. Executives are analytical managers who should specialize in coordinating the efforts of the gestalt thinking talent.
I don't need to do any stupid research; my gut-feelings about gender are righter than others gut-feeling about gender, since they're spineless idiots who use gut-feelings about gender instead of super real biotruths, like me.
These companies will soon be more powerful than most countries!!!!!!!!!! This is Fascism for the 21st century.
I despise Facebook, Twitter, etc. They are just stupid. How they became "the" platform for the internet, I will never know.
If anything can destroy them it will be Google's ham-handed attempt to impose their version of social justice warfare.
Onward, social justice warriors,
marching as to war.
With the cross of self-victimization
going on before!
Intellectual tyranny, the royal Master,
leads against the foe.
Forward into battle,
see our intolerance grow!
And not just today. ACs were never known for truth and integrity, but they seem to be worse lately.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Hillary had classified data on her email server. We know that. We don't know that the server was illegal. We do know it would be illegal now, because the law changed after she left the State Department. The server may have been used to do illegal things, but that doesn't make it illegal in itself. I can deliberately hit someone with my car, and the car remains legal.
The FBI reported on the server and classified information. The FBI said, correctly, that it wasn't worth prosecuting. (Anyone disagreeing with that "correctly" is invited to tell me of one case where someone inadvertently mishandled classified information and was criminally prosecuted. So far, nobody has.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're citing the left for taking facts out of context (and I can argue that the number of suicides is relevant), not for making up facts. The classification of scary-looking semi-automatic weapons as assault weapons is stupid, but it's not actually counterfactual. Fake news isn't taking facts out of context, it's about ignoring what is true and what is false.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I don't believe a WORD of information that comes from Google or Facebook!
You mean the people at FBI who are now under investigations themselves because their wrongdoings?