201–210 of 247 posts
If you like this, then you might also like spidr[0] "SPIDR is an AI-powered news aggregator that uses text analysis to group similar news together. The aim is to provide fast access to relevant news from different viewpoints." [0] https://spidr.today
Good luck to them if course, but I am not sure this will work. Couple of reasons come to my mind: 1. How will I know that news have been reviewed by qualified people? Technically this should be news agency/source's job. 2. By the time the score will depict the news' quality, the damage may be already done. 3. RT is based on people's opinions, but news should be fact checked. What I think it should do, is to score the…
I can imagine this happening with news but along party line with critics upvoting sites that fit their world view regardless of actual content.
IMO this obsession with "Fact-checking" and "Journalistic Integrity" is just people still trying to deal with the fact that conservatist populism has been surging lately and the opposing sides just cant get their brain around it so they are just trying to say "No you are wrong and full of liars; See this fact-check proves it!". But neither side really cares since they are just trying to push their agendas.
People who want falsified narratives about reality don't care about these ratings. They will even go beyond and create their own "alternative facts" seal and go with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s extremely obvious that “top” means “popular and/or most advertised.” In RTs case, "Top" means films no one dislikes it and everybody thought it was at the very least OK. The "problem" with genuinely great films is that they can often be divisive and challenging and generate a lot of strong opinions in both directions, and thus they'll never rate as well on RT.
Looking at the RT top 100 list, 76 films are from 2010 or later, 6 from 2000-2009, and 18 from earlier. Were films a lot more divisive before 2010?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re assuming that a publisher would be willing to put enough money into a prediction market to make a profit from the market machinations rather than advertising or subscriptions. This is also assuming that prediction markets are actually useful in general, and useful in this specific case. Both of which are open to discussion, but even for this specific case, it’s not even clear what the the prediction market wou…
> You’re assuming that a publisher would be willing to put enough money into a prediction market to make a profit from the market machinations rather than advertising or subscriptions. The publisher doesn't (need to) interact with the prediction market at all. The idea isn't that the publisher isn't directly financially punished for inaccurate reporting. That doesn't happen in the RT analogue, isn't what's proposed b…
Even if they were interacting with the market (even for just braggadocio reasons), then they’d just be matching the biases of those that self-select for participation in what is essentially a small value and meaningless game. I could easily see the equivalents of pump-and-dumps and other market manipulation just for political / tribal reasons.
RT is owned by NBCUniversal and is terribly unreliable as a movie ratings aggregator. At one point it was a very useful site, but now it is useless. Might as well ask disney, nbc or studio execs on which movies to watch. We know that RT has lied and fudged ratings for financial or other purposes. It has the same problem as NewsGuard. It is controlled by industry insiders to benefit themselves and the industry. Would anyone trust an oil company ratings company controlled by oil companies?
Rather than a "rotten tomatoes" for news, I'd rather have a "meta" news or wiki site which has a running list of all the fake news that news companies have pushed out. Make it part curated and part user driven. Let users provide, comment and even contribute to it.
Make it listable by news companies and journalists. So we can see which news companies and which journalists have pushed the most fake news to the american public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You’re assuming that a publisher would be willing to put enough money into a prediction market to make a profit from the market machinations rather than advertising or subscriptions. The publisher doesn't (need to) interact with the prediction market at all. The idea isn't that the publisher isn't directly financially punished for inaccurate reporting. That doesn't happen in the RT analogue, isn't what's proposed b…
If the publisher isn’t interacting with the prediction market, then it doesn’t, as jerkstate said, “have skin in the game” beyond the traditional revenue and reputational metrics (eg Pulitzer Prizes). Even if they were interacting with the market (even for just braggadocio reasons), then they’d just be matching the biases of those that self-select for participation in what is essentially a small value and meaningless…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would a prediction market help determine whether a news article about current events is accurate?
It would provide a common prior for any empirical claims. Scott Alexander puts it very well here: A democracy provides a Schelling point, … an option which might or might not be the best, but which is not too bad and which everyone agrees on in order to stop fighting. … In the six hundred fifty years between the Norman Conquest and the neutering of the English monarchy, Wikipedia lists about twenty revolts and civil…
You mean: anyone that has the opportunity to invest.
Incidentally, prediction markets have failed to predict the outcomes of the 2016 US presidential election, and the 2016 UK referendum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's strange though... there are so many movies coming out all the time. Way more than you could ever see, even if you wanted to. What drives a person to go to RT to explicitly say "I don't want to see this movie". They don't do that with all the other movies they don't want to see. It's all about politics, and has nothing to do with the quality of the movie. I haven't seen it, and probably won't, but I have weird ta…
Is politics not a reason somebody might decide to not see a movie? If Mel Gibson produces a great new movie, then during the promotion gets drunk again and makes another racially charged rant to the police, wouldn't that dissuade people from wanting to see the movie? I know plenty of people who never forgave him for the first rant! Why do movies use famous actors anyway? Not all movies do of course, but many do. Why?…
I suspect that RT was surprised when that feature was used the way it was. Politics was probably not what they are thinking about. They are just trying to provide a review aggregator. I doubt they really though through the implication of what "I want to see this movie" might mean.