Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users • Hacker News Board

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#21

Post by dagw » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #13

matthewmacleod wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s dumb. Nobody is being prevented from reading the content. They’re just being warned—correctly—that the information is unreliable.

the issue at hand is how they determine reliability and where they draw the line at acceptable vs unacceptable. I'd argue the left-leaning equivalent of the Daily Mail would be BuzzFeed, complete with regularly posting skewed or outright false information (see this example from a couple of days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/business/media/buzzfeed-n... ). If they want to be consistent you could argue they s…

or outright false information

If we're going to be objective and neutral here, we should point out that there is no evidence that the Buzzfeed article you're referencing is "outright false", and the link you provided certainly doesn't claim that it is. Buzzfeed is still standing behind the story and asking for clarification about exactly what parts of it are being disputed.

It's certainly possible that the story is "outright false", but we're not there yet.

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#22

Post by zimpenfish » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 1:41 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #20

zimpenfish wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> see this example from a couple of days ago “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate.” That could mean anything from "flat out wrong" to "they got a single word wrong in the reported speech but we don't want to tip anyone's hand whilst we'r…

It warrants being called skewed, because I doubt the man in charge of investigating the allegations would make a public statement to call out a "single word wrong". At the very minimum there is something incorrect about the statement itself if "Mr No-Comment" is making a comment. Especially so if no other outlet has yet been able to verify the claims, as stated in the NYT article.

> a public statement to call out a "single word wrong"

I can see many scenarios where they would do exactly that to categorise something as "not accurate" if that information being unchallenged lead to problems building a case or enabled someone like Cohen to back out of a deal etc. But we don't know if it's any of them. Or if Buzzfeed were wrong. At some point, I suppose, we will.

> At the very minimum there is something incorrect about the statement itself

Yes but we don't know where it lies on the "Flat Out Bullshit" to "It's Largely Accurate But We're Not Going To Publically Acknowledge That At The Moment" scale.

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#23

Post by MadraRua » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 1:55 PM UTC

So its Snopes for the Web? There would need to be some transparency issues sorted out (i.e, we need to know who's grading the sites and that the service is open to scrutiny) but the concept is good at least.

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#24

Post by retrogradeorbit » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #13

matthewmacleod wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s dumb. Nobody is being prevented from reading the content. They’re just being warned—correctly—that the information is unreliable.

the issue at hand is how they determine reliability and where they draw the line at acceptable vs unacceptable. I'd argue the left-leaning equivalent of the Daily Mail would be BuzzFeed, complete with regularly posting skewed or outright false information (see this example from a couple of days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/business/media/buzzfeed-n... ). If they want to be consistent you could argue they s…

Everyone is all for things like this when it's their side beating down people they don't like. But then when it is used to attack something they agree with they all suddenly get outraged. Very few these days seem to like ideas like freedom of speech or a "market place of ideas". Seems every one needs a nanny as long as the nanny is one of our guys.

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#25

Post by beaconstudios » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

dagw wrote: post #21

beaconstudios wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the issue at hand is how they determine reliability and where they draw the line at acceptable vs unacceptable. I'd argue the left-leaning equivalent of the Daily Mail would be BuzzFeed, complete with regularly posting skewed or outright false information (see this example from a couple of days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/business/media/buzzfeed-n... ). If they want to be consistent you could argue they s…

or outright false information If we're going to be objective and neutral here, we should point out that there is no evidence that the Buzzfeed article you're referencing is "outright false", and the link you provided certainly doesn't claim that it is. Buzzfeed is still standing behind the story and asking for clarification about exactly what parts of it are being disputed. It's certainly possible that the story is "…

I didn't mean this story specifically when I said "outright false" - obviously this one's still up in the air. But they reported on the Covington Catholic High School debacle, which has since been (as I understand it) shown to be false. That's two high-impact stories - one false and one in contention, in a couple of days.

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#26

Post by beaconstudios » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 2:01 PM UTC

zimpenfish wrote: post #22

beaconstudios wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It warrants being called skewed, because I doubt the man in charge of investigating the allegations would make a public statement to call out a "single word wrong". At the very minimum there is something incorrect about the statement itself if "Mr No-Comment" is making a comment. Especially so if no other outlet has yet been able to verify the claims, as stated in the NYT article.

> a public statement to call out a "single word wrong" I can see many scenarios where they would do exactly that to categorise something as "not accurate" if that information being unchallenged lead to problems building a case or enabled someone like Cohen to back out of a deal etc. But we don't know if it's any of them. Or if Buzzfeed were wrong. At some point, I suppose, we will. > At the very minimum there is some…

I think you're being overly generous here. I would argue the scale is from "bullshit" to "some pertinent information is incorrect". You can spin the latter as meaning the same as "largely accurate" if you want, but it is a spin. I'm hoping that other outlets can dig in and shed more light on the issue in the coming days.

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#27

Post by beaconstudios » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 2:05 PM UTC

retrogradeorbit wrote: post #24

beaconstudios wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the issue at hand is how they determine reliability and where they draw the line at acceptable vs unacceptable. I'd argue the left-leaning equivalent of the Daily Mail would be BuzzFeed, complete with regularly posting skewed or outright false information (see this example from a couple of days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/business/media/buzzfeed-n... ). If they want to be consistent you could argue they s…

Everyone is all for things like this when it's their side beating down people they don't like. But then when it is used to attack something they agree with they all suddenly get outraged. Very few these days seem to like ideas like freedom of speech or a "market place of ideas". Seems every one needs a nanny as long as the nanny is one of our guys .

yeah, it's a big concern. Fundamentally I'd describe it as partisanship prevailing over principles. However, I don't know if principles have prevailed historically, or if it's always been this way. It does seem to be getting worse though.

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#28

Post by benmmurphy » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #11

s9w wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newsguard already managed to get installed on school and library PCs in some US states. If they succeed, they will soon be the most powerful organization in existence, as they will have total control of information. I don't blame Newsguard - of course they want more power for themselves. But I do blame Microsoft for working with them.

That’s dumb. Nobody is being prevented from reading the content. They’re just being warned—correctly—that the information is unreliable.

I would be more in favour of this if it had a click through with a more-information thingy which would show their reasoning applied to other news similar news sites that hadn't had a warning applied to them so users could have a chance to judge the accuracy.

For example in this situation maybe it is based on how many retractions daily mail has made. So it might show a table of news-sites and the retractions and an indicator showing the cut-off where they would add a site to the warning bin. This also would give the Daily Mail a more clear way to get out of the warning bin. For example if they knew another site was out of the warning bin for X retractions then they would know if they reduced to X retractions and the other site stayed the same then presumably they would get removed from the warning bin or the other site would be added as well.

I feel without any transparency this could be abused either as a way of crushing competition through collusion between people in different industries or used to push a particular ideology.

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#29

Post by beaconstudios » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

stingraycharles wrote: post #18

beaconstudios wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

either way, browser vendors should not be the arbiters of truth. I can't think of a news source that hasn't had at least some falsities published - it's the nature of the industry. Sure, the Daily Mail is notably worse than others. But to single them out for "fake news" labelling is worryingly arbitrary.

I find it’s very interesting, because isn’t this type of thing precisely what lawmakers want Facebook and the likes to do, warn people not to trust certain content? Since they’re both tools instrumental for consuming content, what makes it different when Microsoft does it?

I don't think Facebook should do it either because fundamentally I don't want any given group to have authority over whether something is true or false. I want fact-finding to be a distributed effort where claims and counter-claims can be made by reputable news outlets or individual citizen-journalists holding evidence alike. Otherwise, we allow a single entity to decide the truth by imposition, where said entity may not know all the facts or may even have its own agenda.

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#30

Post by bb101 » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 2:34 PM UTC

kingofhdds wrote: post #16

bb101 wrote: post #4

I suppose it might serve as a useful warning for readers from other countries, especially if their country doesn't have tabloids of their own. I would say most people in the UK know to take news from certain publications with a grain of salt, but it can be far from obvious for others.

There are no countries where there are media, but no "tabloids" (also the term can be different). The UK is not that unique as you seem to believe.

I beg to differ. An example is Australia. Plenty of national and regional broadsheets, but no purposefully trashy tabloids that I can think of.