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

111–120 of 233 posts

Re: Fake News Challenge

#111

Post by gonmf »

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #95
enknamel wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Yes you can convey information much more objective than today. For example, on the more recent migration ban story:

"The White House has announced today at 7h30, through speaker ..., a piece of legislation that, quote: ~first paragraph summary of the legislation~.

You can read the full text here.

On the opinion of Bla bla, this legislation is innefective etc etc.

Disclaimer: Bla bla is not related to any of the mentioned organizations, though he declares he tends to agree with the opinion of former president Obama on most issues. You can read more about this commenter here."

Re: Fake News Challenge

#112

Post by astrodust »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #29

It makes me sad to see yet another tech team go down the road of "machines will help us filter the truth" They will not, and the reason has to do with language. Ludwig Wittgenstein tackled this 100 years ago. The best that machines will do for you is to label something as true or not as if you had consumed the article and decided on your own That is a completely different thing from identifying fake news or truth The…

How about a challenge to try and educate people better, to get them "immunized" against propaganda and fake news?

We need more cynical takes on things.

It's utterly appalling that on one side we have right-wing extremists yelling "FAKE NEWS" about CNN because CNN might get something wrong one time in ten, implying it's no different than Breitbart or Fox News which are wrong nine times in ten, and on the other we have left-leaning people beating up CNN for making mistakes and suggesting their trust is completely eroded.

News organizations offer a view. You should be prepared to vet everything you read from anyone. We need to give people a toolkit to help verify stories, to develop their bullshit instinct.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#113

Post by JacobJans »

You'll notice so many posts here that deny the existence of fake news, or attempt to redefine it as "bias."

Frankly, I find it disturbing that so many well educated people aren't able to objectively think about an actually objective problem.

The fake news that started the concept of "fake news" is not a subjective problem. The problem is literal invention of facts not even related to reality, combined with the mass distribution of those invented facts. It is a problem of mass deception.

The classic example: Millions of people shared a post saying the Pope endorsed Donald Trump.

This is objectively false. It's not about liberal vs. conservative. It's not about whether it fits your worldview or not. It simply isn't true.

During the election there were so many literally false stories that got a very large amount of attention.

That is the problem. And yet, so many people seem to think it is a political issue.

It's a sad world we live in where even objective facts no longer matter.

I think that is why so many people are terrified of the direction things are headed.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#114

Post by gonmf »

euyyn wrote: post #82
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #29

It makes me sad to see yet another tech team go down the road of "machines will help us filter the truth" They will not, and the reason has to do with language. Ludwig Wittgenstein tackled this 100 years ago. The best that machines will do for you is to label something as true or not as if you had consumed the article and decided on your own That is a completely different thing from identifying fake news or truth The…

As an example, the fake news about the guy that found the warehouse full of fake ballot boxes for Clinton: A Google Image Search of the picture in the fake article would have found the picture is much older, and isn't what the caption described. If I'm tech-savvy and skeptical, I might have done that when consuming the article, and decided on my own it was fake. Machines can do that automatically for people that aren…

An example of fake, or misleading use of a photo, in a story that appears credible: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BB...

Re: Fake News Challenge

#115

Post by jacquesm »

rdtsc wrote: post #30
slaunchwise wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The day we believe that is the day the fascists win.

The day we stop calling the side we don't agree with fascists just because we don't agree with them is the day we might start winning.

A long quote from wikipedia:

"Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies."

When I read that I see elements of fascism in many governments around the world, with very few of them coming close to the definition.

Even so, you could fairly easily set up a number of points to check off on and score a government (and by extension) it's supporters on a scale from 'definitely not fascist' to 'definitely fascist'.

The question then becomes at what point on that scale it becomes reasonable to call a government fascist and to call a support of that government a fascist. I'm pretty sure we're not there yet but I am also pretty sure that we are slowly but surely sliding in that direction.

Using the term fascism is like a shot in the arm, it tries to wake up the organism that it is directed at that it is getting ill and needs to fend off some viral element. Unfortunately usually the opposite happens and instead the recipient will wall themselves off from the provider of the message. Even so, I guess that even fascism light is dangerous and ugly enough that plenty of people would not be caught dead being labeled a fascist, especially not when there is some hard evidence that it is so.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#116

Post by cmdrfred »

uppercasenut wrote: post #88
cmdrfred wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right believes Obama is from Kenya, the left believes Trump just signed an order that banned Muslims. Both claims upon inspection fall apart immediately. The fact that both of these are so widely believed shows you how little critical thinking and research the average person does. They really just want "their team" to win, it's really a instinctual reaction more than a intellectual one.

"the left believes Trump just signed an order that banned Muslims" He did ban Muslims, just not all of them (yet.) And he did talk about banning all Muslims on the campaign. Now the Kenyan thing requires to believe that a lot of people and countries are on it, and have been decades before Obama was anyone of note.

>He did ban Muslims, just not all of them (yet.)

When Obama bombed those very same countries was he bombing Muslims? Isn't that genocide?

Re: Fake News Challenge

#117

Post by jacquesm »

ng12 wrote: post #24
sgustard wrote: post #11

Fake news is generally identified by the reputation of its author (New York Times vs Alt-Right Patriot Freedom Observer). Nothing published by the Times or Wall Street Journal (despite any editorial bias) is fake, simply because we know (except in the rare circumstance) that they apply journalistic integrity in sourcing and writing articles. Much of what's published on "fringe" sites, especially if no mainstream outl…

It's not clear to me which is more of a problem. With obviously fake news you can at least use well-researched facts to argue against it. When CNN keeps pushing the narrative (i.e. relentlessly talking about Hillary "winning" the debates when in hindsight she obviously didn't) it's a much more subversive, subtle kind of fake.

CNN winning is merely them echoing the majority sentiment of the polls, maybe with a dash of hope thrown in.

Ironically this may have done Clinton in with people thinking well, if she's won already then I don't need to go and vote.

Hindsight is always 20/20, it is very easy to see Clinton winning as a 'narrative' pushed with an agenda whereas based on the data available to them that simply made good sense.

See also: Trump expecting fully to lose (in his own words at some point).

Re: Fake News Challenge

#118

Post by jacquesm »

RodericDay wrote: post #15
sgustard wrote: post #11

Fake news is generally identified by the reputation of its author (New York Times vs Alt-Right Patriot Freedom Observer). Nothing published by the Times or Wall Street Journal (despite any editorial bias) is fake, simply because we know (except in the rare circumstance) that they apply journalistic integrity in sourcing and writing articles. Much of what's published on "fringe" sites, especially if no mainstream outl…

Man some of you guys seriously need to read Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky. I'm as anti-Trump as it gets, but the idea that NYT or WSJ are bastions of reputable journalism is ridiculous. See, for example, the list of controversies associated with the output of Pulitzer prize winner Thomas Friedman.

That should be required reading in high school.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#120

Post by notahacker »

gonmf wrote: post #111
MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Yes you can convey information much more objective than today. For example, on the more recent migration ban story: "The White House has announced today at 7h30, through speaker ..., a piece of legislation that, quote: ~first paragraph summary of the legislation~. You can read the full text here. On the opinion of Bla bla, this legislation is innefective etc etc. Disclaimer: Bla bla is not related to any of the menti…

Leading with a verbatim reproduction of the text describing the purpose of a bill (almost invariably a statement carefully crafted to make a political point) and adding a disclaimer to any points made in opposition is anything but an objective approach to news reporting.
Post reply on HN