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

As Google Fights Fake News, Voices on the Margins Raise Alarm

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 81 posts

Re: As Google Fights Fake News, Voices on the Margins Raise Alarm

#51

Post by ZeroGravitas »

sumfag wrote: post #50
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1984 was not written to warn against politicians being fact-checked by independent organizations. To claim otherwise is not just silly, but actively working at cross purposes to the stated intent.

This comment is poorly parsed, but if I'm understanding you correctly, you've not only completely misunderstood me but are also redirecting the argument elsewhere by misrepresenting my comment.

I replied to a comment that was attacking fact-checking of news by non-governmental organization as being a conspiracy to suppress right-wing views.

You said, 1984 was "written as a warning of this type of censorship".

If you didn't mean to defend the grand-parent post, then you're the one that's expressing yourself poorly.

What's Orwellian here is the number of people who believe things contrary to fact because politicians repeatedly and brazenly lie on those topics and when fact checked, they attack the whole edifice of Science, the free press, the CBO, what people have seen with their own eyes etc.

Re: As Google Fights Fake News, Voices on the Margins Raise Alarm

#52

Post by probably_wrong »

spdustin wrote: post #48
factsaresacred wrote: post #33

> "Google said it had added more detailed examples of problematic pages into the guidelines" 'Problematic'. There's that word, again. The news need not even be 'fake' anymore. Simply 'problematic' will do. Here's Mark Zuckerberg not long ago: > While the amount of problematic content we've found so far remains relatively small, any attempted interference is a serious issue. Problematic to whom, one wonders? The loser…

Problematic to whom? Readers who seek a factual account of an event. Why is this so subjective, and why are people so riled up in these threads? News should be objectively true. If it isn't, it should be clearly flagged as opinion, or struck entirely as fiction, i.e. fake .

There's a line of thinking that claims that 'true' objectivity is impossible, because even choosing what to speak about (or not) involves a degree of subjectivity.

This idea was taken to the extreme with outlets like Fox News, and I think we are witnessing a counter-move in the opposite direction as a result. Once the pendulum swings enough in that direction, and 'legitimate' news start being censored, the GP comment will probably feel a lot more relevant.

Re: As Google Fights Fake News, Voices on the Margins Raise Alarm

#53

Post by spdustin »

probably_wrong wrote: post #52
spdustin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problematic to whom? Readers who seek a factual account of an event. Why is this so subjective, and why are people so riled up in these threads? News should be objectively true. If it isn't, it should be clearly flagged as opinion, or struck entirely as fiction, i.e. fake .

There's a line of thinking that claims that 'true' objectivity is impossible, because even choosing what to speak about (or not) involves a degree of subjectivity. This idea was taken to the extreme with outlets like Fox News, and I think we are witnessing a counter-move in the opposite direction as a result. Once the pendulum swings enough in that direction, and 'legitimate' news start being censored, the GP comment…

Fox News, when they report objectively factual accounts of world events, isn't "fake news". Breathlessly repeating irrelevant stories against the current political grain on Fox News? Still not fake news. Biased, sure. Selectively edited. But not fake. Reporting a rumor or an outright fiction in the form of an objectively factual account of a world event? That's fake.

There is zero reason for the issue to be political. Either it's falsified on purpose and with an intent to deceive the consumer (a'la "Fake Gucci Purse") or it's not.

Re: As Google Fights Fake News, Voices on the Margins Raise Alarm

#54

Post by nailer »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #49
nailer wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1984 was not written to warn against politicians being fact-checked by independent organizations. To claim otherwise is not just silly Thankfully not one of the comments you're responding to is claiming otherwise.

Who needs the memory-hole when we can simply ignore context which is only pixels away: "This is little more than an attempt to sanitize information so that all that remains is the pre-approved 'least problematic' truth (fact-checked, of course)." "These books were written as a warning of this type of censorship " (emphasis in the original)

You seem to be claiming:

> "This is little more than an attempt to sanitize information so that all that remains is the pre-approved 'least problematic' truth (fact-checked, of course)."

is equivalent to:

> politicians being fact-checked by independent organizations.

Which is fascinating.

Re: As Google Fights Fake News, Voices on the Margins Raise Alarm

#55

Post by jon_richards »

spdustin wrote: post #53
probably_wrong wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a line of thinking that claims that 'true' objectivity is impossible, because even choosing what to speak about (or not) involves a degree of subjectivity. This idea was taken to the extreme with outlets like Fox News, and I think we are witnessing a counter-move in the opposite direction as a result. Once the pendulum swings enough in that direction, and 'legitimate' news start being censored, the GP comment…

Fox News, when they report objectively factual accounts of world events, isn't "fake news". Breathlessly repeating irrelevant stories against the current political grain on Fox News? Still not fake news. Biased, sure. Selectively edited. But not fake. Reporting a rumor or an outright fiction in the form of an objectively factual account of a world event? That's fake. There is zero reason for the issue to be political…

Didn't fox news successfully fight a lawsuit by arguing they had no obligation not to lie?

Re: As Google Fights Fake News, Voices on the Margins Raise Alarm

#56

Post by ZeroGravitas »

spdustin wrote: post #53
probably_wrong wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a line of thinking that claims that 'true' objectivity is impossible, because even choosing what to speak about (or not) involves a degree of subjectivity. This idea was taken to the extreme with outlets like Fox News, and I think we are witnessing a counter-move in the opposite direction as a result. Once the pendulum swings enough in that direction, and 'legitimate' news start being censored, the GP comment…

Fox News, when they report objectively factual accounts of world events, isn't "fake news". Breathlessly repeating irrelevant stories against the current political grain on Fox News? Still not fake news. Biased, sure. Selectively edited. But not fake. Reporting a rumor or an outright fiction in the form of an objectively factual account of a world event? That's fake. There is zero reason for the issue to be political…

Fox news displays plenty of "fake" (by any definition) news.

They said the city of Birmingham in the UK was a place "where non-Muslims just simply don't go".

Here's a sampling of 50 pretty obvious lies:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/feb/26/50-...

An aside, I've literally read a story about a guy who writes "fake news" just for cash, and one of the headlines he made up for clicks, is the exact same as something that was actually said on Fox news:

"Says Colorado food stamp recipients can use ATMs to get cash to buy marijuana."

Here's an NPR story about the fake news creator, when he mentions this:

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503...

Ironically the last bit of Fox News I actually watched was a "fact-check" segment.

In it, the first lady's claim that slaves had built the white house was "fact-checked". By which they meant they didn't actually contradict the fact (because it was true) but minimized it as much as possible, including throwing in the unsupported lie that the slaves were "well treated".

We actually have documentary evidence written by the first lady that was in the white house at the time, that the slaves she saw building the white house were in fact poorly treated.

But even if they were, why would you bring this up? Well-treated slaves are still slaves.

Re: As Google Fights Fake News, Voices on the Margins Raise Alarm

#57

Post by pjc50 »

spdustin wrote: post #48
factsaresacred wrote: post #33

> "Google said it had added more detailed examples of problematic pages into the guidelines" 'Problematic'. There's that word, again. The news need not even be 'fake' anymore. Simply 'problematic' will do. Here's Mark Zuckerberg not long ago: > While the amount of problematic content we've found so far remains relatively small, any attempted interference is a serious issue. Problematic to whom, one wonders? The loser…

Problematic to whom? Readers who seek a factual account of an event. Why is this so subjective, and why are people so riled up in these threads? News should be objectively true. If it isn't, it should be clearly flagged as opinion, or struck entirely as fiction, i.e. fake .

The problem is not so much factual/nonfactual content as the opinion and contextualisation, as well as the choice of stories. You can generally tell the stuff that's at least trying to be an objective report because it's syndicated AP/newswire content and is substantially identical across the different news sites.

But there's no real boundary between that and the opinion.

e.g. opinion: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/09/26/tucker-carlson-battles...

news: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/09/27/mortar-rounds-land-a...

(both items selected from the Fox front page above the fold at time of writing)

The simple act of deciding what is and is not "newsworthy" is not objective and cannot be made objective. So truly objective news is impossible.

Re: As Google Fights Fake News, Voices on the Margins Raise Alarm

#58

Post by ZeroGravitas »

nailer wrote: post #54
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who needs the memory-hole when we can simply ignore context which is only pixels away: "This is little more than an attempt to sanitize information so that all that remains is the pre-approved 'least problematic' truth (fact-checked, of course)." "These books were written as a warning of this type of censorship " (emphasis in the original)

You seem to be claiming: > "This is little more than an attempt to sanitize information so that all that remains is the pre-approved 'least problematic' truth (fact-checked, of course)." is equivalent to: > politicians being fact-checked by independent organizations. Which is fascinating.

I'm beginning to believe the basic left/right divide is founded on the inability to handle context.

Though it's probably just a secondary effect of defending the indefensible, which makes context, like facts, inconvenient.

The post was clearly attacking "fact-checking" as a partisan activity. Snopes and Politifact type sites are under attack by the right wing, because fake news is a right-wing problem.

There's no point parsing into exactly how "fake" each bit of news is. Nothing made up by Macedonian teenagers is any crazier than stuff Trump has repeated on camera. As soon as you bring objectivity into things then it's going to make Trump look bad.

They've elected a brazen liar, who lies about stupid stuff he doesn't even need to lie about, and instead of owning that, they're now telling us that 1984 is a warning about people not accepting lies from their government.

Even in the twisted world we now live in, that is shocking.

Re: As Google Fights Fake News, Voices on the Margins Raise Alarm

#59

Post by nailer »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #58
nailer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be claiming: > "This is little more than an attempt to sanitize information so that all that remains is the pre-approved 'least problematic' truth (fact-checked, of course)." is equivalent to: > politicians being fact-checked by independent organizations. Which is fascinating.

I'm beginning to believe the basic left/right divide is founded on the inability to handle context. Though it's probably just a secondary effect of defending the indefensible, which makes context, like facts, inconvenient. The post was clearly attacking "fact-checking" as a partisan activity. Snopes and Politifact type sites are under attack by the right wing, because fake news is a right-wing problem. There's no poi…

As other posters have pointed out, 'problematic' is code for 'acceptable by left politics'. This is generally pretty well known. Narrowing things down to 'acceptable by left and fact checked' (adding fact checking to claim legitimacy) is very different from 'fact checked'.

Re: As Google Fights Fake News, Voices on the Margins Raise Alarm

#60

Post by Digit-Al »

I seems to me that Google are 'damned if they do, and damned if they don't'.

They get loads of stick for linking to fake news, but if they try to do something about it they get loads of stick for 'trying to control what we see'.

The biggest culprit in the spreading of fake news is ourselves. The number of times I see friends spreading stories on Facebook that smell false on first viewing, and can be shown to be false with a 20 second Google search is amazing.

Nobody can be arsed to spend a tiny bit of time fact checking and when you call them out on it they just shrug and give the feeble 'just in case' excuse.

Post reply on HN