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

Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 90 posts

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#41

Post by KekDemaga »

astura wrote: post #31
KekDemaga wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I live in Sweden. How do I fact check what happens in a neighborhood in the USA? I question the utility of you having any opinion on US politics, especially at the local level. You are certainly entitled to one but I don't know what it gets you without a vote.

Did we read the same comment? Being interested in world events and/or the results of clinical trials conducted overseas is in no way "having [an] opinion on US politics." (Not to mention that a Swede can have a very legitimate, personal, vested interest in what's going on in the US, maybe the GP had family vacationing in Vegas. - I had family vacationing in France during the Paris bombings, my mother-in-law called me…

How is anyone sure of the results of a clinical trial, and how would proximity increase the level of certainty? In regards to world politics when could you ever be certain a report is accurate? Didn't you always have to use critical thinking?

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#42

Post by remlov »

kartan wrote: post #20
rightos wrote: post #3

I really don't like the "fact checks" being done by news sites these days - that's your responsibility as a reader, tech can't do it for you. Even more reputable sites like Snopes tend to draw absolutist conclusions about things which I find are certainly not absolute.

> that's your responsibility as a reader I live in Sweden. How do I fact check what happens in a neighborhood in the USA? How do I know that a result of a clinical test is reliable? Do I check it on another on-line source? Do I spend millions on R&D and do my own analysis? Or just few thousands going to Las Vegas and gathering my own data? Or do I need to wait for a Newspaper that actually has fact-checking? > Even m…

Snopes most definitely is NOT one of the more reputable fact-checking sites FYI.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#43

Post by yahna »

rightos wrote: post #3

I really don't like the "fact checks" being done by news sites these days - that's your responsibility as a reader, tech can't do it for you. Even more reputable sites like Snopes tend to draw absolutist conclusions about things which I find are certainly not absolute.

So you prefer to be able to absorb the endless stream of lies without any refutation?

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#44

Post by dmix »

projektir wrote: post #26
toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Critical thinking is a fundamental requirement of an educated electorate. Google and Facebook are culpable, but the news consumer is the problem. If you believe any information put in front of you, we've already lost. EDIT: @mikeash: We don't give up. I just don't know what the solution is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ @projekti: If "it doesn't scale", your only option is to meet with your representatives with a lobbying group, and intr…

This doesn't scale. There's too much information out there for even the most critical of voters to verify.

The critical difference is that even if this statement is (mostly) true that doesn't mean we have adequate solutions available to solve it...

"Think of the children", etc.

A centrally controlled whitelist has as many (or more) risk than a pagerank algorithm. Moral panics about the gatekeeper's blacklist not being all-encompassing is also of questionable value... especially in regards to an event in the very early hours of a high-traffic news story which are generally full of incomplete information.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#45

Post by ocdtrekkie »

pilif wrote: post #25

>We are working to fix the issue that allowed this to happen This is not some issue that you can fix. This is not some color being off, or some chat message appearing out of order. This is about AI in its continued infancy that’s now being actively and maliciously targeted. It’s also about a huge responsibility of the worlds two greatest media outlets that both think they can have machines do a humans job and miserab…

I have little problem with the reality that automation is taking away jobs machines are better at. We know machines build cars on an assembly line better than humans.

But generally, old jobs going away make room for new jobs coming in. And it seems to me like we have a whole mountain of new potential jobs in the content curation and moderation area. We see time and time again that this is something machines are not better at, but unfortunately, companies are very resistant to realizing their approach is inadequate.

I feel this is largely because they have no reason to. Due to a couple of laws, Internet platforms are largely not liable for these sorts of things, so they have no incentive to hire people and/or do a better job.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#46

Post by rightos »

jhayward wrote: post #21
rightos wrote: post #3

I really don't like the "fact checks" being done by news sites these days - that's your responsibility as a reader, tech can't do it for you. Even more reputable sites like Snopes tend to draw absolutist conclusions about things which I find are certainly not absolute.

I couldn't disagree with you more. To make this statement is akin to saying that the opinion of experts is useless. This is exactly what has lead to the flood of conspiracy theories, malicious mis-statements, and general degradation of the media commons that has put us in our present state. I do not have the infinite amount of time necessary to fact check the flood of bullshit in social media, much less deliberate BS…

> To make this statement is akin to saying that the opinion of experts is useless.

That's not at all what I'm saying - absolutely, look at the opinions of experts, just don't expect a news service to present all the ideal experts to you in one place. Go out and seek those experts on your own and verify who you think is credible and where their existing biases are.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#47

Post by pwinnski »

remlov wrote: post #42
kartan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's your responsibility as a reader I live in Sweden. How do I fact check what happens in a neighborhood in the USA? How do I know that a result of a clinical test is reliable? Do I check it on another on-line source? Do I spend millions on R&D and do my own analysis? Or just few thousands going to Las Vegas and gathering my own data? Or do I need to wait for a Newspaper that actually has fact-checking? > Even m…

Snopes most definitely is NOT one of the more reputable fact-checking sites FYI.

On any issue not directly related to the divorce of the founders, it absolutely is.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#48

Post by BFatts »

pilif wrote: post #25

>We are working to fix the issue that allowed this to happen This is not some issue that you can fix. This is not some color being off, or some chat message appearing out of order. This is about AI in its continued infancy that’s now being actively and maliciously targeted. It’s also about a huge responsibility of the worlds two greatest media outlets that both think they can have machines do a humans job and miserab…

Neither of them would be considered "Media Outlets" since they don't employ reporters or an editorial board. You are overreacting because it's not Google or Facebook pushing bad content on you - it's you choosing to believe it at face value. And by "you" I mean "the collective you" - everyone has a responsibility to determine if the information they've received is correct or not. If you cannot verify it - don't believe it. If there aren't multiple sources claiming the same thing, it's probably an opinion.

To "fix" this, we either need to reduce the allowed error rate, or enforce a disclaimer which states something like "This information is collected automatically by a program. No human reviews this, so please do your own research."

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#49

Post by ng12 »

kartan wrote: post #20
rightos wrote: post #3

I really don't like the "fact checks" being done by news sites these days - that's your responsibility as a reader, tech can't do it for you. Even more reputable sites like Snopes tend to draw absolutist conclusions about things which I find are certainly not absolute.

> that's your responsibility as a reader I live in Sweden. How do I fact check what happens in a neighborhood in the USA? How do I know that a result of a clinical test is reliable? Do I check it on another on-line source? Do I spend millions on R&D and do my own analysis? Or just few thousands going to Las Vegas and gathering my own data? Or do I need to wait for a Newspaper that actually has fact-checking? > Even m…

Erhm, you click on the link? Every page on 4chan contains the following disclaimer at the top: "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact".

If you want real fake news, Google any semi-obscure health issue. You'll be lucky to find one or two .gov's among sketchy sites peddling homeopoathic cures.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#50

Post by 8ytecoder »

pilif wrote: post #25

>We are working to fix the issue that allowed this to happen This is not some issue that you can fix. This is not some color being off, or some chat message appearing out of order. This is about AI in its continued infancy that’s now being actively and maliciously targeted. It’s also about a huge responsibility of the worlds two greatest media outlets that both think they can have machines do a humans job and miserab…

You are understating and giving a pass for the real issue at hand - a lack of ability to think critically by a large portion of our population. Let's assume for argument's sake that Google News and Facebook shut down their feeds tomorrow - can you tell me with confidence that another one won't mushroom up and take its place or that people won't switch to "dark" networks - Whatsapp, Messenger, Email and what not?

I'm not absolving Google and Facebook. There are more trustworthy places to get your news and information. Why do you think people flock to less reliable sources? Unless that's solved, democracy and with it culture and progress as we know it is destined to be doomed.

Post reply on HN