381–390 of 645 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fact check: Copernicus was not killed. He died of natural causes at 70. According to viral stories at the time, moments after having seen the first print of his book.
See, just like that. Would be more effective with sources, though.
It's also on us to resist the temptation to build social media bubbles around ourselves, and to poke into each other's bubbles. Every time I've wanted to block a friend or relative on facebook, I've put my phone down and come back to it later. Looking away from people we disagree with isn't working. My cousin shared a post this morning asking why people on the left aren't celebrating the fact that a female campaign m…
When I knew people who supported Romney, I felt no need based on that to exclude them from my life or my social media circles. One's ability to support Trump tells me much more about a person. There are too many things that are good and should be fundamental about a functional, enlightened society that one must reject in order to support Trump. Prejudice, fraud, bullying, and sexual harassment must all be accepted. P…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I'm suggesting we start with is not exactly the same. The analogous question in that domain is "How accurate have they been in eliminating wrong answers?" Everything has to be right for an answer option to be correct. Only one thing has to be wrong for it to be incorrect.
And how do you think that they would do that? Choosing a random story from politifact: http://www.politifact.com/missouri/statements/2016/nov/06/ro... Like most false stories, there is a hint of truth to this but that doesn't make it true. Politfact spends 3 pages discussing it, and concludes: Courts did object in three cases to decisions Kander made as secretary of state. But the specifics of those cases are much mo…
A lot of claims that were made this cycle are rooted in measured quantities where the measurements we have disagree with the claims.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/donald-trump-will-be-pre...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no need to create a Grand Unified Theory of misinformation, here. This problem isn't that hard. You filter this stuff and rank it by its SOURCE, not by the content of individual articles. It's not hard to figure out which online sources are pushing out most of the abjectly-bad propaganda, and de-rank them.
"This problem isn't that hard. You filter this stuff and rank it by its SOURCE, not by the content of individual articles." I don't think reifying ad hominem into code is the solution to the problem. Of course, if you don't mind a rare few false positives here and there on articles, I've got your filter right here: def source_is_trustworthy(source): return False Remember as you sit here thinking through your exceptio…
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_...
Facebook isn't promising more than cat gifs, Buzzfeed click bait and rants. It is not more an echo chamber than your group of friends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"This problem isn't that hard. You filter this stuff and rank it by its SOURCE, not by the content of individual articles." I don't think reifying ad hominem into code is the solution to the problem. Of course, if you don't mind a rare few false positives here and there on articles, I've got your filter right here: def source_is_trustworthy(source): return False Remember as you sit here thinking through your exceptio…
As someone who vehemently opposes Trump, I feel that allegations of anti-Trump bias in the mainstream media were entirely correct and somewhat to be expected. Although Trump is certainly a name that sells papers, Trump's repeated threats to open up news media to broader libel laws were not well received. The news organizations' endorsements were pretty one-sided[0]. I don't want to take you too literally, but it seem…
What is the correct balance of endorsements? Is anything other than 50:50 incorrect?
"OMG, Trump has won through lies and deception! We failed to stop him. How on Earth did that happen? We must out-manipulate our opponents next time." If you read between the lines, this is what the article condenses to. The discussion here is mostly creepy groupthink shit. Social networks fact-checking their content? What's next? Should AT&T stop the spread of misinformation over its phone lines? Should USPS fact-che…