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

Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

poynter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 109 posts

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#61

Post by Zecar »

int_19h wrote: post #31
Zecar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Last time I looked they refused to update their fact check about Nathan Phillips false claims of Vietnam service.

Here's the takeaway on that page now: "It’s difficult to determine at this point whether Phillips has deliberately misrepresented the nature of his service, whether he has been so vague and ambiguous in many of his descriptions (unintentionally or otherwise) that misinterpretations have entered his narrative, or whether he has tried to be accurate but may have just occasionally slipped up in his many, many hours of c…

> Which part of it is inaccurate?

?? I don't know, perhaps the part where the guy is literally on video claiming to be a vietnam vet? You folks are utterly baffling. But go ahead and downvote.

https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1088285433673515009

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#62

Post by Zecar »

Pharmakon wrote: post #37
Zecar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Last time I looked they refused to update their fact check about Nathan Phillips false claims of Vietnam service.

What problem do you find there? I also hope that your response to a request for support in favor of a very strong claim isn’t to vaguely reference a single example. The fact that the example seems nonexistent makes it a bit worse, but not by much.

The part where he is on video claiming to be a Vietnam vet.

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#63

Post by Zecar »

eli wrote: post #23
Zecar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Last time I looked they refused to update their fact check about Nathan Phillips false claims of Vietnam service.

What part is wrong?

The part where he is on video claiming to be a Vietnam vet.

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#64

Post by 52-6F-62 »

fitpolar wrote: post #54
deogeo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you trust whoever trained or is controlling the AI?

At this point nothing is trustworthy. But I have more faith that AI is going to do a better job in future than humans ever have. We may be 100 years away from that though, or 1000 years. Who knows?

And then this AI is the sole bearer of all ultimate, unarguable truth regardless. Like a god you mean?

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#65

Post by jamesku »

jamesku wrote: post #58

Good! Snopes is a cancer rewiring the brains of youth as to what impartial fact checking actually should be. Snopes passing off as factual is exactly the same as Fox's previous rhetoric of being "fair and balanced", just on the other side of the political spectrum. There are a few examples already in this thread on Snopes bias with inaccurate inclusions. But historians know that you are just as biased in what you cho…

Lots of racists on here downvoting a comment calling out white males racially attacking Mexicans.

Arrests have been made, this is all reported: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6648081/Antifa-Wash...

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#66

Post by quadrangle »

ransford wrote: post #56

Was the $100K mentioned in this article the total amount Facebook gave Snopes? Because that's, like, one new-grad signing bonus.

For a particularly high-demand technical engineering position maybe. For other things… well, Facebook pays folks in the Philippines something like $2/hour to get PTSD while screening posts for the worst content the worst humans are able to generate (beheadings for example). Where would you expect fact-checking to fit in?

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#67

Post by fitpolar »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #64
fitpolar wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point nothing is trustworthy. But I have more faith that AI is going to do a better job in future than humans ever have. We may be 100 years away from that though, or 1000 years. Who knows?

And then this AI is the sole bearer of all ultimate, unarguable truth regardless. Like a god you mean?

Is that your interpretation? Mine is the opposite: "At this point nothing is trustworthy".

Just saying that humans have an extremely poor track record at compromising information for political gain. Anything would be better at this point, you can't get any worse.

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#68

Post by [deleted] »

Fauntleroy wrote: post #50

I can't believe the massive number of HN users here who are willingly throwing critical thinking under the bus just because of political bias. It's maddening that people are making the jump from "Snopes posted something possibly incorrect about soda cans" and "Snopes one time fact checked shitty satire" directly to "Snopes is untrustworthy". Everything is imperfect, even fact checking groups. If you're going to throw…

[deleted]

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#69

Post by rhizome »

nitwit005 wrote: post #59

If Facebook was only willing to devote $100,000 to it, it seems like they basically spent the minimum amount possible so that they could claim they were doing something. The expense doesn't remotely match up to the scale of the problem.

...or the value of the work.

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#70

Post by incongruity »

rhizome wrote: post #69
nitwit005 wrote: post #59

If Facebook was only willing to devote $100,000 to it, it seems like they basically spent the minimum amount possible so that they could claim they were doing something. The expense doesn't remotely match up to the scale of the problem.

...or the value of the work.

That’s not really a new MO for them - remember, this is a site that uses unpaid content creators to attract other unpaid content creators and then sells access to us and knowledge about us to businesses and political interests among others.

Figuring out how to pay very little and suck out a lot of value is what their business is built on.

Post reply on HN