Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Stop the Bullshit

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 117 posts

Re: Show HN: Stop the Bullshit

#81

Post by jnotarstefano »

wrongc0ntinent wrote: post #71

While I like the friendly notification/explanation, any tool targeting fake news should do a little better in establishing its own credibility. You want to persuade, not block. I'm not sure the dollar amount is enough. We see it in these very comments: show the user a sample of obvious falsehoods they published. This way you could probably come up with a threshold where you just give up.

That's an excellent idea. I wrote the copy on that page trying to convey "can I get your help against these bad people?", rather than something blaming the user, or a scary looking warning.

But showing them the _reason_ why a certain website is blocked can become an opportunity to teach people critical thought, something that other comment threads point out.

Re: Show HN: Stop the Bullshit

#82

Post by tptacek »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #74
mihok wrote: post #42

Interesting project, Is censorship the best coarse of action? Bare with me for a second, would it not be better to somehow overlay a meter or light indicating that this story is likely false. Even better, some sort of indicator that showed the # of sources (if any) and devised some sort of rating of quality/truthfulness. I'm against all the fake news in Facebook et all but if we dont teach people to be good at detect…

Censorship is not the best way forward. People need to adjust (read: acquire) critical thinking skills. But let's start with the media. For example, quoting unvetted tweaks should be grounds for shaming, or worse. In addition,it should be not that this tool can be used to apply any prejudice, bias, etc. I certainly empathize with the sentiment here but this can quickly becomes a case of be careful what you wish for.

When Google blocks cialis spam from your inbox, do you consider that censorship? Because that's what these sites are: spam.

Re: Show HN: Stop the Bullshit

#83

Post by lj3 »

tptacek wrote: post #78
lj3 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can say that until you're blue in the face, but nobody believes it anymore. This sort of block list has already been used to justify the blocking of completely legitimate (albeit right wing) news sites from Google. The fact of the matter is this isn't a spam filter, no matter how much you want to spin it that way. Anytime I see the phrase "fake news" I know for sure there's political bias at play. That phrase did…

So just to be clear, you think there really is a chance the Dalai Lama endorsed both Putin and Trump?

Are you saying people who believe odd things no longer have the right to say them? Would websites covering the million man march in the 70's have been considered 'fake news' back then?

Somebody saying the Dalai Lama endorsed both Putin and Trump is producing original content and by definition isn't spam (unless they stole that content from somebody else, of course). Whether nefarious, delusional or just misinformed, do you think merely being wrong is proof enough to label an entire site as 'fake news'? Are we applying this standard to Fox News and CNN? They aired quite a few inaccuracies during the election.

Re: Show HN: Stop the Bullshit

#84

Post by tptacek »

lj3 wrote: post #83
tptacek wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just to be clear, you think there really is a chance the Dalai Lama endorsed both Putin and Trump?

Are you saying people who believe odd things no longer have the right to say them? Would websites covering the million man march in the 70's have been considered 'fake news' back then? Somebody saying the Dalai Lama endorsed both Putin and Trump is producing original content and by definition isn't spam (unless they stole that content from somebody else, of course). Whether nefarious, delusional or just misinformed,…

I'm saying that sites that report as news that the Dalai Lama joined Putin in condemning Obama and Clinton as progenitors of ISIS are not worth listening to.

We are not applying the same standard to Fox News and CNN, because neither of those organizations simply invented crazy stories out of whole cloth and ran them as news on multiple different sites.

Here's an exercise: take the craziest story you can find on ENDTHEFED.COM (the spam site), and search for the headline. You'll see it's not just on ENDTHEFED.COM, but on several other sites. That's because it's laundered, exactly the same way webspam is, across many sites to conceal its origin and lack of originality. This is 2005-grade spam technology.

You think you're arguing passionately in defense of open-minded political discourse. But you're not. You're defending webspam, run by cynical webspam farms. You should stop.

Re: Show HN: Stop the Bullshit

#86

Post by jknoepfler »

programmarchy wrote: post #65
InclinedPlane wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People need to stop using the word "fake news" as though people were seeing stories about "bat boy" in the grocery store checkout aisle and believing them. This is propaganda. It's inflammatory, it's knowingly false, and it has a political agenda. It's propaganda.

I'd challenge you to name one news site that doesn't have a political agenda. Everything is "propaganda", including your comment, and mine.

edit: if you're going to down-vote something which is plainly constructive and well thought-out, you should try to articulate a response.

[1] propaganda, noun, derogatory: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

His comment is claiming that fake political news should be distinguished from the fake tabloid style news (bigfoot sightings/alien abduction/etc. that we've become accustomed to in the grocery store checkout aisle). The former is propaganda, the latter is not.

This distinction is correct, in terms of everyday usage of the word.

Your claim that "everything is propaganda" is plainly false. An author having a political agenda is not sufficient to render an article propaganda. This would be similar to claiming that every article written by someone with sexual desire is "pornography." It's plainly ridiculous, unless you are operationally defining "pornography" to mean something other than it does in everyday written English.

Things that are propaganda:

1. fake news stories disseminated with the express intent of influencing elections, which are known to be false by the author of the article / editor of the publication / etc.

Things that are not propaganda:

1. stories about bat children in supermarket tabloids

2. your comments

Things that might be propaganda:

1. fake news stories about political figures that appear in tabloids that also produce bat-child news (the article is false, the article might publicize and promote a political cause, but it isn't clear that it is a tool deliberately crafted to do that). What would clearly be propaganda in this situation though, would be a liberal/conservative/etc. spin site republishing a fake tabloid news story about Clinton/Trump that they must in good faith know is false).

[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/propaganda

Re: Show HN: Stop the Bullshit

#87

Post by lj3 »

tptacek wrote: post #84
lj3 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying people who believe odd things no longer have the right to say them? Would websites covering the million man march in the 70's have been considered 'fake news' back then? Somebody saying the Dalai Lama endorsed both Putin and Trump is producing original content and by definition isn't spam (unless they stole that content from somebody else, of course). Whether nefarious, delusional or just misinformed,…

I'm saying that sites that report as news that the Dalai Lama joined Putin in condemning Obama and Clinton as progenitors of ISIS are not worth listening to. We are not applying the same standard to Fox News and CNN, because neither of those organizations simply invented crazy stories out of whole cloth and ran them as news on multiple different sites. Here's an exercise: take the craziest story you can find on ENDTH…

Webspam farms are spam and should be filtered as such. The fact is 'fake news' is a separate term and is using separate filters because it's a completely separate concept that is political in nature.

You claim this isn't a slippery slope, but we've already slid down it a bit. Infowars was delisted by Quantcast as 'fake news'. Whether you like Alex Jones or not, I think we can both agree his site isn't blogspam.

Re: Show HN: Stop the Bullshit

#88

Post by mmbaghdad »

tptacek wrote: post #82
chiefalchemist wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship is not the best way forward. People need to adjust (read: acquire) critical thinking skills. But let's start with the media. For example, quoting unvetted tweaks should be grounds for shaming, or worse. In addition,it should be not that this tool can be used to apply any prejudice, bias, etc. I certainly empathize with the sentiment here but this can quickly becomes a case of be careful what you wish for.

When Google blocks cialis spam from your inbox, do you consider that censorship? Because that's what these sites are: spam.

doesn't google lable it and just put it in the spam folder?

Re: Show HN: Stop the Bullshit

#89

Post by notahacker »

jjawssd wrote: post #47
jnotarstefano wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Those are the only websites I'm interested in targeting with this extension. For example, I would never blacklist Breitbart, because I'm not interested in censoring political opinions I disagree with. I just want to free us from the burden of these websites that add nothing to the world and leech attention from everyone.

> I just want to free us from the burden of these websites that add nothing to the world and leech attention from everyone. The slope is very slippery. It is very easy to put forth an argument that some left/right wing media "[adds] nothing to the world and [leeches] attention from everyone" Keeping the focus on blatant spam sites is a noble cause, but this tool is as easily misused as a firearm.

We don't have similar qualms about voluntary mass blocking of ads.

I think the reverse assumption - that everything should be considered a valid information source until conclusively proved otherwise - is probably a more dangerous bias than assuming that some media does add nothing to the world.

Re: Show HN: Stop the Bullshit

#90

Post by lj3 »

notahacker wrote: post #89
jjawssd wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just want to free us from the burden of these websites that add nothing to the world and leech attention from everyone. The slope is very slippery. It is very easy to put forth an argument that some left/right wing media "[adds] nothing to the world and [leeches] attention from everyone" Keeping the focus on blatant spam sites is a noble cause, but this tool is as easily misused as a firearm.

We don't have similar qualms about voluntary mass blocking of ads. I think the reverse assumption - that everything should be considered a valid information source until conclusively proved otherwise - is probably a more dangerous bias than assuming that some media does add nothing to the world.

That logic suggests we should ban free speech and only allow certain people and organizations to be registered as valid information sources, preferably after passing some sort of test that shows they're legitimate and trustworthy.
Post reply on HN