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

211–220 of 233 posts

Re: Fake News Challenge

#211

Post by caminante »

JacobJans wrote: post #192
general_ai wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say the company your work for or have shares in discriminates on the basis of race. Does this make _you_ a racist? Is there any evidence that he was in fact the decision maker when it comes to these policies? FWIW, the very same article you linked to (in a despicable fake news rag, BTW) says "Donald testified repeatedly that he had nothing to do with renting apartments". :-)

Once again, you are showing why it is so hard to talk about the actual problem. You've managed to distract from the issue by bringing up inflammatory statements about Donald Trump. You go on to accuse Salon.com to be a fake news site, which it is most definitely not, at least not in terms of the problem that lead to the issue of Fake News in the first place. This, in a sense, is Donald Trump's fault. He is so good at…

I read general_ai's comments. I don't think your summary's fair and submit that your tone's a little aggressive.

This doesn't get things back on topic. Though, it took minimal effort to find instances of Salon running ridiculous reports. [0]

Here the real problem: these companies can't get their hands on content fast enough. WaPo produces 500 articles/day and 1200 items/day. AFAIK, because there's no real punishment for quasi-spurious claims, there's no incentive to spend marginal time vetting sources. Today, the story can be shared 100K times in the time a retraction takes place. But by then, the damage has been done, and again, the punishment isn't material. I don't think a retraction fully undoes the damage of spurious reporting.

[0] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/23/salon_trut...

Re: Fake News Challenge

#212

Post by untog »

imron wrote: post #209
untog wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't describe this as fake news at all, but I'd say that one person's view on a video they have watched isn't comparable to that dossier, which was (apparently) compiled from numerous in-person visits and interviews. Not to mention, reporting on the dossier always clarified that it was not verified, while this opinion piece is making broader conclusions. I agree with you broadly, though. To me, fake news has ab…

> isn't comparable to that dossier, which was (apparently) compiled from numerous in-person visits and interviews And that (apparently) can trace its origins to a 4-chan prank?

That depends on whether you consider the word of an anonymous 4channer to be as reliable as that of a former intelligence officer.

Personally, I do not.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#213

Post by jccalhoun »

general_ai wrote: post #188
jccalhoun wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you didn't hear people call him racist for years doesn't mean it didn't happen. I am willing to be that people called him racist when the Justice Department filed a housing discrimination lawsuit against his company in 1973. Or when his company settled that suit but in 1978 the government filed another complaint claiming his company didn't meet the terms of the settlement. https://www.salon.com/2011/04/2…

Say the company your work for or have shares in discriminates on the basis of race. Does this make _you_ a racist? Is there any evidence that he was in fact the decision maker when it comes to these policies? FWIW, the very same article you linked to (in a despicable fake news rag, BTW) says "Donald testified repeatedly that he had nothing to do with renting apartments". :-)

The issue is not whether or not he had anything to do with it. You stated, "he wasn't in any way called "racist" by anybody until he ran for president."

I gave evidence from a 2011 article that has a number of links describing how he was involved in things in the 70s that would make someone call him a racist.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#214

Post by general_ai »

jccalhoun wrote: post #213
general_ai wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say the company your work for or have shares in discriminates on the basis of race. Does this make _you_ a racist? Is there any evidence that he was in fact the decision maker when it comes to these policies? FWIW, the very same article you linked to (in a despicable fake news rag, BTW) says "Donald testified repeatedly that he had nothing to do with renting apartments". :-)

The issue is not whether or not he had anything to do with it. You stated, "he wasn't in any way called "racist" by anybody until he ran for president." I gave evidence from a 2011 article that has a number of links describing how he was involved in things in the 70s that would make someone call him a racist.

"Would", if he ran for president against a democrat back then. As things stand, the article you linked to doesn't directly call him anything of the sort.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#215

Post by general_ai »

caminante wrote: post #211
JacobJans wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again, you are showing why it is so hard to talk about the actual problem. You've managed to distract from the issue by bringing up inflammatory statements about Donald Trump. You go on to accuse Salon.com to be a fake news site, which it is most definitely not, at least not in terms of the problem that lead to the issue of Fake News in the first place. This, in a sense, is Donald Trump's fault. He is so good at…

I read general_ai's comments. I don't think your summary's fair and submit that your tone's a little aggressive. This doesn't get things back on topic. Though, it took minimal effort to find instances of Salon running ridiculous reports. [0] Here the real problem: these companies can't get their hands on content fast enough. WaPo produces 500 articles/day and 1200 items/day. AFAIK, because there's no real punishment…

Slate.com is another example of a despicable fake news rag though. :-)

Re: Fake News Challenge

#216

Post by imron »

untog wrote: post #212
imron wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isn't comparable to that dossier, which was (apparently) compiled from numerous in-person visits and interviews And that (apparently) can trace its origins to a 4-chan prank?

That depends on whether you consider the word of an anonymous 4channer to be as reliable as that of a former intelligence officer. Personally, I do not.

It's not so much the word, as the time-stamped posts from months before the news was published.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#217

Post by fooker »

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?

Their approach only works with reasonable people unfortunately..

Re: Fake News Challenge

#218

Post by aaron695 »

JacobJans wrote: post #192
general_ai wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say the company your work for or have shares in discriminates on the basis of race. Does this make _you_ a racist? Is there any evidence that he was in fact the decision maker when it comes to these policies? FWIW, the very same article you linked to (in a despicable fake news rag, BTW) says "Donald testified repeatedly that he had nothing to do with renting apartments". :-)

Once again, you are showing why it is so hard to talk about the actual problem. You've managed to distract from the issue by bringing up inflammatory statements about Donald Trump. You go on to accuse Salon.com to be a fake news site, which it is most definitely not, at least not in terms of the problem that lead to the issue of Fake News in the first place. This, in a sense, is Donald Trump's fault. He is so good at…

> Salon.com to be a fake news site, which it is most definitely not

Hence the problem. It is, it's not rocket science this is true.

But AI or not you seem like you won't change your mind. This is what the right thinks about Fox.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#219

Post by intended »

imron wrote: post #202
intended wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not? The definition of fake news is getting stretched to include controversial news. "Fake news" is fiction being sold as news on websites that look credible. Flat out making stuff up, and polluting the media stream with it in order to manipulate people. This is the easy case to solve. As people actually try to grapple with this, "fake news" will evolve, it will add parts of the truth to it dodge this 0th lev…

Ok, so if I compile a dossier of unverified stories regarding Hillary, and package them up then it suddenly makes otherwise fake claims not fake news? I mean that's the whole sub-prime mortgage problem all over again. Take a shitty product and wrap it in layers of respectability until people don't know any better. When there is also evidence to suggest much of the contents of the dossier came from a 4-chan prank, it'…

I think you need to clarify 2 concepts/definitions, agnostic of real world events.

1) fake news: a recent phenomenon where fraudulent/fictional/completely made up literature is peddled as legitimate news. This is then distributed on steroids via social media. It uses unsuspecting people to transmit this.

Bias in news. This is an older problem and involves how news is presented and what spin is put. In the worst case it is deliberate in order to support an agenda.

Re: Fake News Challenge

#220

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #103
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…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r_6hBIX71Y&t=111s I saw an interesting talk the other day (talks at google); Often there is a problem with misrepresentation of facts; (i think the general standard of journalism is quite low); amazing how a subtle editorial slant can twist things... Will Moy is speaking for an organization that does some fact checking and is giving some examples in the talk.

I think people start to notice these old editorial tricks more these days so that there is an impression that all news are fake - at least to some extent.
Post reply on HN