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

Fake News Challenge

fakenewschallenge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 233 posts

Re: Fake News Challenge

#91

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

tokenizer wrote: post #74
padseeker wrote: post #53

The problem is not "fake news". The problem is people are treating the news like a product in the capitalist paradigm. If you don't like the way your local bakery makes their bread you go somewhere else. Now if the media reports on something you don't like someone else will tell you what you want to hear. This issue happens on both sides of the political spectrum BUT it does seem to be a lot worse on the conservative…

And yet, I'm sure none of your news, your sources, have been compromised. I'm sure one of these anti science boogeymen you've created would think you are equally brainwashed and they are equally correct in their views...

I agree with the parent but I began reading the New York Times every morning at the age of 12, wondering to myself "why is there so much speculation going on around Iraq and WMDs? We haven't found anything so why does everybody want to invade?"

I still like the Times to an extent, but they like many other papers get it wrong from time to time. Doesn't mean I should leave and never look back, but instead I have taken to critically thinking about every story I read from every source to come to a conclusion about an issue.

I don't think fake news or poor journalism is a problem. The problem is people and their lack of critical thinking, often substituted for blind acceptance of a narrative that fits their preferred reality.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#93

Post by smsm42 »

lend000 wrote: post #38

How about a 'subjectiveness' ranking instead, with notations for "unable to find link to a source of factual claims"? That's the best we could ever safely do, and we would likely find interesting results (WaPo might be labeled more subjective than Fox News, for example, even though both would generally have low numbers of notations for 'unable to find link to source of factual claim'). As I said in another post: The…

> How about a 'subjectiveness' ranking instead, with notations for "unable to find link to a source of factual claims"?

What would that mean? Let's say I write an article where I claim White House is controlled by reptiloids from planet Nibiru. Would it check that I have any links in my article at all? Or that the links actually prove my claims? Or that these proofs can be trusted (I may just link to my own website or one created by my friend)? I could insert a hundred links to a most respectable austronomy sites to prove that planet Nibiru exists, but how would you know whether these links actually prove it? I could refer to a lot of actual news content as the proof White House occupants can't actually be human. How you evaluate if these links actually support my claim?

Re: Fake News Challenge

#94

Post by zzzcpan »

eplanit wrote: post #49
lend000 wrote: post #38

How about a 'subjectiveness' ranking instead, with notations for "unable to find link to a source of factual claims"? That's the best we could ever safely do, and we would likely find interesting results (WaPo might be labeled more subjective than Fox News, for example, even though both would generally have low numbers of notations for 'unable to find link to source of factual claim'). As I said in another post: The…

> Regardless, the most dangerous form of "fake news" is by the selection/omission of stories This. Very true, and woefully absent from most discussions regarding "fake news".

It's even worse, selection of stories is the whole point of news, they exist for the sole purpose of influencing people's opinions. And the fight against "fake news" looks nothing more than the fight for censorship in the space those in power not yet control.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#95

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

enknamel wrote: post #90
padseeker wrote: post #53

The problem is not "fake news". The problem is people are treating the news like a product in the capitalist paradigm. If you don't like the way your local bakery makes their bread you go somewhere else. Now if the media reports on something you don't like someone else will tell you what you want to hear. This issue happens on both sides of the political spectrum BUT it does seem to be a lot worse on the conservative…

> The problem is not "fake news". The problem is people are treating the news like a product in the capitalist paradigm. I would say a huge part of the problem is that news is no longer news. It's all commentary. News organizations are not only incentivized to to sensationalize stories to make money but they are also ran by people who have extreme political views and want to essentially mind control the population. T…

> They want to make you accept their interpretation of the facts.

Please, describe to me how someone can convey pure unadulterated facts in language, without imposing an "interpretation" on them.

It's an absurd fantasy. There's no possibility for a disembodied, perfectly objective voice conveying facts. So yes, in a sense, every news org favors a certain interpretation of the facts. But these subtle variations used to be accepted as par for the course.

The root cause of the widespread distrust of media is the turn on the right towards a form of Orwellian doublespeak in their media outlets, beginning in the 90s and ramping up heavily in the Bush years. You see it's most virulent expression in the way Trump speaks: he accuses the interim AG of "betrayal" for acting on her conscious. Or the way he talks about returning government "to the people" while staffing his cabinet with billionaires. It badly subverts the ability of people on the left and the right to meaningfully speak to one another, because our words no longer signify the same thing.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#96

Post by enraged_camel »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #91
tokenizer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, I'm sure none of your news, your sources, have been compromised. I'm sure one of these anti science boogeymen you've created would think you are equally brainwashed and they are equally correct in their views...

I agree with the parent but I began reading the New York Times every morning at the age of 12, wondering to myself "why is there so much speculation going on around Iraq and WMDs? We haven't found anything so why does everybody want to invade?" I still like the Times to an extent, but they like many other papers get it wrong from time to time. Doesn't mean I should leave and never look back, but instead I have taken…

The difference is that when NYTimes gets something wrong, it is not out of sheer malice and desire to mislead people. It's because their sources were wrong and the journalists didn't do a good enough job verifying the information.

Fake news on the other hand are literally made up lies. The overwhelming majority of fake news articles have no basis in reality, period. They tend to be written by people who want nothing other than to get page views.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#97

Post by spdustin »

padseeker wrote: post #53

The problem is not "fake news". The problem is people are treating the news like a product in the capitalist paradigm. If you don't like the way your local bakery makes their bread you go somewhere else. Now if the media reports on something you don't like someone else will tell you what you want to hear. This issue happens on both sides of the political spectrum BUT it does seem to be a lot worse on the conservative…

Apple News does try to increase visibility of sources/topic you read a lot. If you swipe the story tile to the left, you can see more actions for that source.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#98

Post by smsm42 »

necessity wrote: post #56
antiffan wrote: post #44

It seems like Wikipedia would be familiar with a lot of the same challenges that come with identifying fake news articles. Anyone more familiar than I am with Wikipedia care to comment?

Wikipedia has a policy to only accept reliable secondary sources on controversial political articles. What comprises a "reliable source" is loosely defined, and what sources are considered reliable is ultimately decided by the editors in a somewhat per-article basis, with some global definitions which are not centrally listed anywhere but are enforced by senior editors and their admin friends. Because of the systemat…

My personal rule is Wikipedia is very reliable in non-controversial topics, and should be trusted only as much as source of links and search keywords and information about some of the existing opinions for controversial topics. Which is something, but definitely not a full solution of a problem.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#99

Post by crispyambulance »

padseeker wrote: post #53

The problem is not "fake news". The problem is people are treating the news like a product in the capitalist paradigm. If you don't like the way your local bakery makes their bread you go somewhere else. Now if the media reports on something you don't like someone else will tell you what you want to hear. This issue happens on both sides of the political spectrum BUT it does seem to be a lot worse on the conservative…

Forgive me if I exercise a brand new buzzword but this project might better be classified as an exercise in "computational journalism" ?

A fake news detector isn't going to do anything by itself to solve the problem. Fake news consumers are going to guzzle the junk regardless of warning tags, scores, or nutritional labeling.

In the hands of a skilled journalist/activist/thought-leader whose abilities are "augmented" by this tool, however, it could really be a powerful antidote.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#100

Post by deckard1 »

Clanan wrote: post #37

Is anyone else put off by this obsession with "solving" fake news? As if we can simply throw technology at such a contentious and controversial issue and then trust the results. It reads to me like the goal is censorship, where only "approved" articles/authors are allowed, all in the name of "fact checking". Never mind that it's incredibly easy to cherry-pick facts or exaggerations to target "offensive" articles (by…

Engineers often operate under the false belief that they can solve social problems with technology. And the systems they build rely on participants being rational actors that subscribe to a shared system of values. They end up devolving into censorship of opposing viewpoints.

In fact, I would go as far as saying that the internet, itself, was designed and built in the naive belief that humans would better themselves by instant access to knowledge. This past decade and a half has completely shattered our 1980s and '90s vision of the promise of the internet.

We have few means of combating propaganda that threatens our values, reclaiming our privacy, or maintaining our remaining sanity. When a shared objective reality no longer exists, we're all loons.

Post reply on HN