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

Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 119 posts

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#51

Post by raxxorrax »

Fact checkers would have me believe that we are constantly victims of Russian disinformation campaigns. I think the worth of fact checkers has already been concluded.

The truth is that you should be aware of the general bias a publication has. Also how they can be linked together via parent companies. If you have multiple sources with different bias, you should be fine.

The WSJ for example belongs to the Murdoch conglomerate. There are a lot more of those. Of course it is unknown how much influence there is on their editorial board. But still important to keep that in mind.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#52

Post by pjc50 »

stareatgoats wrote: post #29

Interesting times, and a slippery slope. These fairly square rules will surely cause other uproars as it invites back the alt-right with their tongue-in-cheek fascism. And the Facebook algorithms seem embarrassingly incapable of nuance, like this Tommy Robinson debacle: the mere mention of the name "Tommy Robinson" in a post (in Sweden) renders your profile inactive for several days or indefinitely. In other countrie…

He's still all over Youtube.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#53

Post by kazagistar »

ravenstine wrote: post #45
stareatgoats wrote: post #29

Interesting times, and a slippery slope. These fairly square rules will surely cause other uproars as it invites back the alt-right with their tongue-in-cheek fascism. And the Facebook algorithms seem embarrassingly incapable of nuance, like this Tommy Robinson debacle: the mere mention of the name "Tommy Robinson" in a post (in Sweden) renders your profile inactive for several days or indefinitely. In other countrie…

We wouldn't allow the American government to behave this way, but somehow it's okay if a big corporation takes control of a large portion of communication and enacts these draconian rules. But it's a private totalitarian state. /s

At least when the government does it, you have a presumed outlet of voting for one that doesn't. When a corporation does something you have no outlet if it has an effective monopoly or they all do it or you just have negative net worth and cannot possibly vote with your dollars.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#54

Post by pjc50 »

raxxorrax wrote: post #51

Fact checkers would have me believe that we are constantly victims of Russian disinformation campaigns. I think the worth of fact checkers has already been concluded. The truth is that you should be aware of the general bias a publication has. Also how they can be linked together via parent companies. If you have multiple sources with different bias, you should be fine. The WSJ for example belongs to the Murdoch cong…

This is the thing - while there does appear to be a foreign covert disinformation campaign, it's dwarfed by the domestic "legitimate" disinformation put out by Murdoch and other press outlets. Or people like Alex Jones.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#55

Post by raxxorrax »

pjc50 wrote: post #54
raxxorrax wrote: post #51

Fact checkers would have me believe that we are constantly victims of Russian disinformation campaigns. I think the worth of fact checkers has already been concluded. The truth is that you should be aware of the general bias a publication has. Also how they can be linked together via parent companies. If you have multiple sources with different bias, you should be fine. The WSJ for example belongs to the Murdoch cong…

This is the thing - while there does appear to be a foreign covert disinformation campaign, it's dwarfed by the domestic "legitimate" disinformation put out by Murdoch and other press outlets. Or people like Alex Jones.

True. I am not disputing there aren't any efforts to manipulate voters. I would be surprised if there were not. But the relevancy that the media tried to transport just wasn't adequate.

I genuinely believe that many just have been played, but that could have been mitigated by providing at least a somewhat believable perspective.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#56

Post by apatters »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #41
apatters wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think of the Media Bias Chart? https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ This project assesses the factual accuracy and political bias of a large number of articles (and by extension, the publishers of those articles). It seems to me that we have always had the ability to verify whether a given statement is factual or counterfactual, and that's a big part of what good journalism is. A verifiable fact is a…

So you don’t believe that you can use facts to mislead people, nor that you can mislead people without presenting anything as fact? If you report a story, using only the facts that support your narrative, and omitting only the facts that don’t support it, have you lied? Have you reported propaganda? What if you report a story, without reporting anything as a fact? What if you report “anonymous sources claim ___”, or…

I counted at least six questions in your response -- I appreciate the response, but do you really expect a rational person who seeks to make the best use of their time to respond to six questions in one comment? This makes it hard to continue the discussion IMO. I don't know where to start and it'd take me an hour to finish.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#57

Post by sharemywin »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #7
paxys wrote: post #3

Most of the misinformation and propaganda out there is presented as "opinion" on all networks. The very little actual news on Fox, for example, is always accurate (and actually pretty good), so not being able to call them out on that takes away from the entire effort.

Most reporting is based on opinions, or is at least misleading in the sense that it tends to be reported from well defined perspective. The editorial decisions about what to report, what to not report, what to report as important or credible, and what to report as irrelevant or non-credible, can all be used to mislead the audience and misrepresent events. I can’t think of one mainstream news outlet that doesn’t do th…

Good news is based on fact and biased by a narrative. People need stories to understand. Facts are hard to process and remember for most. But, fact checking whether opinion or satire* or news can be useful for the average person that doesn't have the time to fact check.

*satire passing as news with fine print is garbage meant to mislead.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#58

Post by sharemywin »

makomk wrote: post #40
pfisch wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a pretty big difference between a lie by omission and just spreading false information. By your definition any news would always be false because they didn't include the entire history of the world in their story. You aren't being realistic. There are people and organizations that are just spreading completely false information with the intent of deceiving people.

A lie by omission can be used to convince the public of things that aren't true just the same as more direct methods of spreading false information.

I think the point is let's just focus on the blatant lies for right now. A. because it's easier and B doing nothing isn't working.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#59

Post by gadders »

croon wrote: post #48
gadders wrote: post #5

I can't help wondering if this was triggered by the whole Babylon Bee vs Snopes situation: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/us/snopes-babylon-bee.htm... https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-fact-checker-declares-war-on-...

Speaking of opinion pieces, that second one could really use some scrutiny.

Well, it's written by the boss of the Babylon Bee so it's not likely to be impartial...

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#60

Post by chapium »

ravenstine wrote: post #49
ForHackernews wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott Adams also claimed that women are treated with deference for the same reason children and mentally handicapped people are[0], so you'll have to forgive me for not giving too much credence to his unsourced statistics about the incompetence of a large fraction of humanity. [0] https://jezebel.com/dilbert-creator-deletes-misogynist-rant-...

Scott Adams is a commentator and humorist, not a researcher or academic. Most reasonable people don't expect others in such a position to cite statistics and evidence, just as we don't shout "citation needed" every time a comedian makes a joke and doesn't mention a study proving their punchline is indeed funny because it's true. Even if Scott Adams wrote something legitimately offensive, that article, like everything…

Then maybe he shouldn't be using made up statistics to reinforce his arguments. He can't just spout bullshit and be immune to criticism because he's not a true "x".
Post reply on HN