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

71–80 of 81 posts

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

#71

Post by observation »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #56
spdustin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Personally I think NPR is one of the worst offenders.

It's not what they say, it's what they leave out. Those soothing dulcet tones are half way to hypnosis.

I give you little credit for recognize Fox News propaganda because it's entry level manipulation. Most people who visit Huffpo know what it is. Organizations like the New York Times, NPR, The Economist and National Review have refined it to an art form.

I take the latter group more seriously because large numbers of people buy into their lines but Fox and Huffpo are what WWF is to armed conflict.

The New York Times is a Communist organization. That is not hyperbole, it is the truth. It's not well hidden if you go and look. They have always supported Communism. Likewise The Economist has always supported Fascist and other authoritarian dictatorships. Inside every friendly, well mannered, articulate moderate is an extremist trying to claw out.

Us Westerners support all manner of extraordinary adventures because for ourselves at the center of world power this is a game that doesn't involve high stakes. The voters are complicit of course, we have prospered greatly over the centuries and like our comfortable lives that don't involve thorny questions.

I don't feel bad about this, it's the same as every other civilization in history. Perhaps we ought to restrain ourselves more from saving the world if only to halt our plumbing the depths of grandiose neurosis. I think I've offended everybody now so I'll shut up.

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

#72

Post by alexryan »

observation wrote: post #71
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Personally I think NPR is one of the worst offenders. It's not what they say, it's what they leave out. Those soothing dulcet tones are half way to hypnosis. I give you little credit for recognize Fox News propaganda because it's entry level manipulation. Most people who visit Huffpo know what it is. Organizations like the New York Times, NPR, The Economist and National Review have refined it to an art form. I take t…

Quillette: Smearing Free Thought In Silicon Valley http://quillette.com/2017/09/25/smearing-free-thought-silico...

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

#73

Post by jochung »

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 .

If the issue is truthfulness, then they should complain about that instead of labeling things as "problematic". The word is terminally underspecified, and its usage should be avoided for that reason.

The fact that it's so popular is a sign people using it are not used to articulating their objections concretely, which is a red flag.

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

#74

Post by colechristensen »

avn2109 wrote: post #6
colechristensen wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spot-checking, and I agree, this doesn't at all seem to be "fake news". Much like the actual communists that I've known, I find myself disagreeing with the opinions, priorities, and judgements, but it doesn't seem to be misleading or mischaracterizing the truth.

The thing about "fake news" is that nobody can agree on an objective definition of what it is. So people just train their models on controversial pages and hope for the best.

I keep having this argument about the dictionary. Just because enough people use a term incorrectly doesn't make the term adopt new meaning. Language does shift and that should be respected, but if you take it too far (which many do) nothing means anything any more.

To the point, the people calling truth they don't like "fake news" aren't adding a definition to the term. They're just lying. Fake news is news which is objectively faked. Definitions of "news" shouldn't be controversial, and neither should definitions of "fake".

Fake news are objects which try to pass themselves as news but substantially misrepresent the truth through malice or gross ignorance. Or more softly, Fake News is anything like an Onion article except not (almost) everyone is in on the joke. (and maybe the joke isn't so much a joke as a lie)

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

#75

Post by colechristensen »

Ygg2 wrote: post #36
avn2109 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about "fake news" is that nobody can agree on an objective definition of what it is. So people just train their models on controversial pages and hope for the best.

"Fake news" is such a non descript term, it's essentially double speak (i.e. it means whatever I disagree with). I mean, was WMD in Iraq Fake news? The point is, press lost all credibility a long time ago, so now we can apply this label far and wide.

No, the producers of fake news are defending themselves by using doublespeak to dilute the accusation.

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

#76

Post by spdustin »

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…

I feel like people replying missed the "when they report objectively factual accounts of world events" qualifier.

They don't often do that.

Fox News is deeply biased, that isn't in dispute. Only if they or another news outlet lie can the label "fake news" rightfully be applied. Fake = fictional. Anything else is a version of the truth. Biased fake.

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

#77

Post by dang »

eighthnate wrote: post #69
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't know what "problematic" means you could just look it up in a dictionary. adjective: constituting or presenting a problem Or are the "word-checkers" in on the big conspiracy too?

You are being facetious. Problematic is subjective. Here is a simple comparison. Jews are problematic to nazis. Nazis are problematic to jews. Feminism is problematic to chauvanists. Chauvanists are problematic to feminist. You see the problem with problematic right?

Would you please stop posting such generic, unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? They are tedious and break the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

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

#78

Post by dang »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #40
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…

If you don't know what "problematic" means you could just look it up in a dictionary. adjective: constituting or presenting a problem Or are the "word-checkers" in on the big conspiracy too?

Would you please not post snarky, unsubstantive comments here? They break the site guidelines and degrade discussion below the level we're hoping for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#79

Post by spdustin »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #56
spdustin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And such lies are fiction. Fiction = fake.

Was I unclear?

Lies = fiction

Fiction = fake

Selective/subjectively editorialized truth = biased/misleading, but not fake

Objective unbiased truth = not fake

I'm not debating the ratios of any such types of news on any network.

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

#80

Post by spdustin »

jorvi wrote: post #70
spdustin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 isn't fake news Haven't heard a good one like that in a while. Here is Bill O' Reilly on Amsterdam, with factual counterpoints: https://youtu.be/sTPsFIsxM3w

You left off the qualifier, which makes your premise flawed. I did not state what you appear to quote. By reporting something I did not say, you literally uttered "fake news". Was that your intent?

When any news outlet reports news objectively and factually, that reporting is not fake. When they report it with subjective editorialization, it's BIASED, but if it's TECHNICALLY TRUE, it's NOT FAKE.

If it's a lie, it's fake. If it's fictional, it's fake. Your quote of my message, for example, was fictional.

Is Fox News "fake news"? More often, it's simply blatant BIAS, but yes, certain hosts are well-known purveyors or FAKE news.

Post reply on HN