Credible people tend to establish their credibility over time. Journalists establish journalistic credibility and factcheckers establish factchecking credibility.
Journalists have to sex-up the facts -- turn them into a story. Nevertheless, in my opinion, some journalists are very accurate except when it comes to politics...
Factcheckers do nothing other than check facts. Even journalistic embellishment is frowned upon.
In the UK, factcheckers have a great reputation: Full Fact, Channel 4 and the BBC to some degree. In the US, some fake one were set up.:/
It's notable that the currently highest rated comments on here don't seem to like fact checking either. What has happened to the Slashdot moderator base?
Whilst no fact-checking service is perfect.... why is having them annotate what is 99.9% likely to be fake news worse than freely allowing bullshit to pervert democracy?
... independent ones, and independent journalists.
So this was a headline neglecting to mention her white nationalism. If Facebook asks a black person whether the headline is misleading, they're generally going to get a very different answer from a white person. Also, does Facebook actually know if it's asking a black person?
It's interesting (in a scary way) to compare the plight of the US and UK.
The UK has no constitution to speak of. It has a Human Rights Act, which acts as a mere slap on the wrist -- and the current Pry Minister wants to scrap it. However, we don't think she's a tyrant, just an authoritarian with bad taste in advisors.
The US has a constitution, including embedded rights. Whether he is or not, Trump sounded like a tyrant when campaigning. The US constitution is dependent on both citizens willing to challenge the govt and the Supreme Court's willingness to uphold it. Whilst constitutional protection for privacy is soft, protection for things like due process is strong.
I've said for about 8 years that while the US is quite likely to become a bit fascist towards eg immigrants, it's less likely in the UK. However, the UK is at much more risk of becoming a full blown police state.
"We previously showed [this enzyme] can prevent obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome [a disease characterized by a combination of obesity, high blood pressure, a metabolic disorder and insulin resistance]. So, we think that aspartame might not work because, even as it is substituting for sugar, it blocks the beneficial aspects of IAP...."
So when looking for the mechanism that causes weight gain with all low calorie sweeteners[1], we found that aspartame reduces the effect of IAP in mice. IAP, in turn, reduces metabolic syndrome in mice who are force fed high fat diets.
This may or may not mean something with human beings. Sugar, however, is strongly correlated with obesity, diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimers. [2]
Politicians could focus on California, New York, Chicago and maybe urban areas in Texas. The rest of the nation wouldn't matter.
Sorry, you're just wrong on this, and I'm saying that as a non-partisan psephologist.*
California is only a voting bloc because the Electoral College makes it one. You add up California, New York, Chicago and Texas and you only get about a third of the electorate. That's if you get every single vote in these states, which is ridiculous to begin with.
Having a directly elected President eliminates swing states. Every vote counts -- although all votes are only equal if you have preferential voting.
This isn't to say that a small bias towards smaller states is anti-democratic. The EU uses a similar system. But the US will retain that bias even if the Electoral College is scrapped.
PS it's notable that I don't know of any place that has a directly-elected President via preferential voting. France does it via run-off but it's dumb plurality in the first round -- which means tactical voting is encouraged.
*I'm the British chair of a major pro-democracy group. Don't wish to disclose my identity though because Britain has just introduced the most invasive surveillance seen in a 'democracy'.
You were +5 at one point? Is meta-moderation broken?
Your post is factual, insightful and at worst partisan and alarmist. But definitely not trolling.
I would argue that it's not partisan and possibly not alarmist either.
What exactly does a totalitarian President look like anyway? They're unlikely to have a funny little moustache and bark like a dog. Personally, I'd have thought suggesting Muslims wear badges, attacking the media and asking for 'brown shirts' to intimidate voters gave more of an indication than Hitler gave before he got a foothold in power. So how can it be alarmist?
It's not partisan because most of the educated world agrees with you. 65% of Germans say they're literally afraid of a Trump Presidency. And a big part of their culture is making sure Hitler never happens again:
The EU is the one defending privacy whilst my own country just introduced the most invasive surveillance laws of any democracy. Oh, it's also made us 10% richer and we don't need visas to go to the best cities in the world.
Even if you include the 2005 bombings where the Govt knew of the bombers and seemingly had an agent who was its mastermind..... UK terrorism has killed fewer people than peanuts. Peanuts of course target young children too.
Two years of Trump and even the thickest Brit would think twice about Brexit.
Even though the vast majority of the country would refuse to pay the price for Hard Brexit, our unelected authoritarian Prime Minister (whose legislation this is) is determined to push for it anyway.
I wish I had reason to share your optimism re: Article 50.
to deny that human-caused CO2 emissions are having a significant impact on global climate really is no different than denying that all life evolved from some common ancestor, or that eating high amounts of refined sugar is hazardous to your health, or that smoking cigarettes leads to cancer and lung disorders.
First two aren't the best examples. Sugar hasn't been proven to be particularly bad for people if blood sugar and overall weight is managed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And our coastal cities and whole countries aren't likely to be uninhabitable in 2100 if we're wrong about evolution. http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/sto...
Slashdot Mirror
Puttomg Snopes and Politifact in the same category as Fox & HuffPo undermines your point.
Credible people tend to establish their credibility over time. Journalists establish journalistic credibility and factcheckers establish factchecking credibility.
Journalists have to sex-up the facts -- turn them into a story. Nevertheless, in my opinion, some journalists are very accurate except when it comes to politics...
Factcheckers do nothing other than check facts. Even journalistic embellishment is frowned upon.
In the UK, factcheckers have a great reputation: Full Fact, Channel 4 and the BBC to some degree. In the US, some fake one were set up. :/
I mean factcheckers in the literal sense.
>Or the fact checkers are either biased or in on it.
Or they're not, having established credibility on factchecking over many years.
As I said to the other guy, if factcheckers call your beliefs BS, it's because they are.
... is worse than a big chunk of your electorate being misinformed?
Stop pretending this is about liberals wanting to censor all dissenting opinions. It's about fake news.
And if factcheckers call your beliefs BS, it's because they are.
Made up headlines or whatever this is... means nothing.
Secondly, you seem to think that FB's filters won't apply to more mainstream sources. Why?
It's notable that the currently highest rated comments on here don't seem to like fact checking either. What has happened to the Slashdot moderator base?
Whilst no fact-checking service is perfect. ... why is having them annotate what is 99.9% likely to be fake news worse than freely allowing bullshit to pervert democracy?
... independent ones, and independent journalists.
So this was a headline neglecting to mention her white nationalism. If Facebook asks a black person whether the headline is misleading, they're generally going to get a very different answer from a white person. Also, does Facebook actually know if it's asking a black person?
Here's the Philly article:
http://www.philly.com/philly/b...
Here's the version from bleeding heart liberal progressive magazine, Sports Illustrated:
http://www.si.com/mlb/2016/12/...
It's notable that Google has hired/funded Full Fact, a facts-only organisation in the UK I can personally vouch for.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article...
It's interesting (in a scary way) to compare the plight of the US and UK.
The UK has no constitution to speak of. It has a Human Rights Act, which acts as a mere slap on the wrist -- and the current Pry Minister wants to scrap it. However, we don't think she's a tyrant, just an authoritarian with bad taste in advisors.
The US has a constitution, including embedded rights. Whether he is or not, Trump sounded like a tyrant when campaigning. The US constitution is dependent on both citizens willing to challenge the govt and the Supreme Court's willingness to uphold it. Whilst constitutional protection for privacy is soft, protection for things like due process is strong.
I've said for about 8 years that while the US is quite likely to become a bit fascist towards eg immigrants, it's less likely in the UK. However, the UK is at much more risk of becoming a full blown police state.
"We previously showed [this enzyme] can prevent obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome [a disease characterized by a combination of obesity, high blood pressure, a metabolic disorder and insulin resistance]. So, we think that aspartame might not work because, even as it is substituting for sugar, it blocks the beneficial aspects of IAP...."
So when looking for the mechanism that causes weight gain with all low calorie sweeteners[1], we found that aspartame reduces the effect of IAP in mice. IAP, in turn, reduces metabolic syndrome in mice who are force fed high fat diets.
This may or may not mean something with human beings. Sugar, however, is strongly correlated with obesity, diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimers. [2]
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Politicians could focus on California, New York, Chicago and maybe urban areas in Texas. The rest of the nation wouldn't matter.
Sorry, you're just wrong on this, and I'm saying that as a non-partisan psephologist.*
California is only a voting bloc because the Electoral College makes it one. You add up California, New York, Chicago and Texas and you only get about a third of the electorate. That's if you get every single vote in these states, which is ridiculous to begin with.
Having a directly elected President eliminates swing states. Every vote counts -- although all votes are only equal if you have preferential voting.
This isn't to say that a small bias towards smaller states is anti-democratic. The EU uses a similar system. But the US will retain that bias even if the Electoral College is scrapped.
PS it's notable that I don't know of any place that has a directly-elected President via preferential voting. France does it via run-off but it's dumb plurality in the first round -- which means tactical voting is encouraged.
*I'm the British chair of a major pro-democracy group. Don't wish to disclose my identity though because Britain has just introduced the most invasive surveillance seen in a 'democracy'.
I can see why you posted as AC.
... which is why he listed it separately.
You were +5 at one point? Is meta-moderation broken?
Your post is factual, insightful and at worst partisan and alarmist. But definitely not trolling.
I would argue that it's not partisan and possibly not alarmist either.
What exactly does a totalitarian President look like anyway? They're unlikely to have a funny little moustache and bark like a dog. Personally, I'd have thought suggesting Muslims wear badges, attacking the media and asking for 'brown shirts' to intimidate voters gave more of an indication than Hitler gave before he got a foothold in power. So how can it be alarmist?
It's not partisan because most of the educated world agrees with you. 65% of Germans say they're literally afraid of a Trump Presidency. And a big part of their culture is making sure Hitler never happens again:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/04...
If you give up the slaver-appeasement Electoral College, how exactly will tyranny of the majority happen?
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...
I haven't been asked to meta-moderate in about 6 years. Does it still exist?
I took it seriously and doubt I got meta-meta-moderated. Possibly, I don't post enough comments any more to qualify.
The EU is the one defending privacy whilst my own country just introduced the most invasive surveillance laws of any democracy. Oh, it's also made us 10% richer and we don't need visas to go to the best cities in the world.
Even if you include the 2005 bombings where the Govt knew of the bombers and seemingly had an agent who was its mastermind... .. UK terrorism has killed fewer people than peanuts. Peanuts of course target young children too.
Two years of Trump and even the thickest Brit would think twice about Brexit.
Even though the vast majority of the country would refuse to pay the price for Hard Brexit, our unelected authoritarian Prime Minister (whose legislation this is) is determined to push for it anyway.
I wish I had reason to share your optimism re: Article 50.
The ECHR isn't part of the EU.
Nonetheless, countries in the EU condemning totalitarian actions by the UK government is one of the main defences we have.
to deny that human-caused CO2 emissions are having a significant impact on global climate really is no different than denying that all life evolved from some common ancestor, or that eating high amounts of refined sugar is hazardous to your health, or that smoking cigarettes leads to cancer and lung disorders.
First two aren't the best examples. Sugar hasn't been proven to be particularly bad for people if blood sugar and overall weight is managed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And our coastal cities and whole countries aren't likely to be uninhabitable in 2100 if we're wrong about evolution.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/sto...
Seems to be a new denialist meme.
And don't hide behind AC if you want another reply.