471–480 of 702 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They made themselves the fact checkers. If they're going to take the mantle of "fact checker", it is their responsibility to do it well.
They only did it after being pressured by the same people that are now saying they should not have done it. It doesn't matter what they do at this point. They will come out as the bad guys regardless.
Appropriate indignation and demand on BMJ's part. Meanwhile, in the Stossel libel case, Facebook's lawyers allegedly 'claim that Facebook’s “fact-checks” are merely “opinion” and therefore immune from defamation.'
> Meta is alleged only to have superimposed a fact-check label on the Fire Video, describing Climate Feedback’s conclusion that the video was “missing context.” Stossel does not claim that label is actionably false—presumably because it is protected opinion. The conclusion that the video was “missing context” is necessarily a judgment call, one that is “not capable of verification or refutation by means of objective…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't "bungle" it. It's working as designed.
Please don't post this sort of shallow, grandiose rhetoric. It leads to low-information, high-indignation discussion—i.e. flamewar—i.e. the crap that we're trying to avoid here. If you want to make this kind of critique, fine, but you need to do it with substance and not just turn up the volume knob. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When did he tweet that?
Looks like May 27th, 2018. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1000560049389907969?ref_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rupert Murdoch is Jewish?
It took a lot of work finding one that was English/scott. There is the famous Elon Musk tweet https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1637457156799.jpg
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know in your country, but in Spain most fact-checkers have very evident ties with two political parties, and they handle info in an agenda-setting style. They even have very personal links to politicians. Of course they really polish their communication and websites, and they know how to sound scientific-y throwing in some graphs and stuff. The problem is not only that, but that the same people who works in t…
This will be some snark in this comment, but against my own country and not you and yours. I invite a cross-cultural comment on competence. Are the partisan fact-checkers in Spain at least competent enough to write grammatical, parsable sentences and titles? From the BMJ OP: > It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They only did it after being pressured by the same people that are now saying they should not have done it. It doesn't matter what they do at this point. They will come out as the bad guys regardless.
I think them being the same people is exceptionally unlikely
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see your point, but two objections. - Nuanced opinions and good information is rarely free, be it in monetary terms, be it in the invested time, relationships, etc. Thus, if you're not planning to give up most of your time for any topic, you better find good proxies. And currently the press provides more noise than signal. This is problematic. - If you know anything about Spain is that it's basically Game of Throne…
> You can't take any editorial line for granted, because it's more tied to a group of people seeking power than any background ideology or anything similar. I don't mean to misrepresent the parent's argument, but I think they would demand the same solution of editorial transparency towards the groups of people seeking power you mention. That said, I might be coming from a place of ignorance here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be clear what you're saying, you personally, or for the sake of others, need satire labels to identify that "CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News Before Publication" is satire? That is the statement you just made?
Even knowing it's satire, the headline makes an implication that CNN is misleading people by "spinning" the news they report.