191–200 of 307 posts
Stop fact checking sites, and social media becomes even worse than it is.
Use fact checkers, and you love with false positives and false negatives.
Then narratives form around those errors ( because we are pattern recognition machines, even when there are no patterns).
So what’s the out ?
All fact checking will create some amount of False pod/negative. No amount of money, time or resources can avoid that.
"Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong" Where has it gone wrong? “We did not call into question the integrity of The BMJ’s story, only the comprehensiveness of it. That’s the point of a ‘Missing Context’ rating. The BMJ article is being used as evidence of Vaccine Conspiracy theories, it's not like the warning is on the Article, it's where it's shared on Facebook and the missing context label is rele…
Indeed, the very controversy around the label is evidence that the article needs more context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook HIRED Peter Daszak as a 'factchecker' and allowed him to REMOVE anything that suggested the virus came from a lab. As somebody who probably incited/funded/created covid19, he was heavily incentivized to hide this crime. Facebook ENABLED this coverup
> As somebody who probably incited/funded/created covid19, he was heavily incentivized to hide this crime. > Facebook ENABLED this coverup. Wat? How is this not considered a conspiracy theory? 5 comments down an article that discusses fact checking... Hm, maybe my sarcasm-meter is off by a notch again. dunno.
It's at the following link, at about the 1 hour 17 minute mark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ripping off business ideas is an aspect of competition (BK versus McDonalds), not sure it is related to morals…
Sorry, what? If I share an mp3 the record industry demands ridiculous compensation. If I steal a paragraph in a college exam and get caught, I'm sent home without credit or refund. If I sell a drawing of a certain cartoon mouse, or draw a red shirt on Pooh, I can literally go to jail. ... But if I invest my life savings to start a company based on an insightful idea and read of the market, a trillion dollar company c…
The bigger issue that you are pointing to is that the tech companies are becoming large trusts that do everything and can leverage their size to win everywhere. E.g. see Amazon competing with Intel now.
The anti-trust movement needs to be stronger if society says: ‘wait, this isn’t a good idea to let one company win at everything’
The entire idea of "fact checking" on social media is premised on the notion that fact checkers have some kind of superior epistemic merit compared to the checkees. When you're fact checking random people or journalists that may or may not be true, but why does Zucc think facebook's checkers are superior to the BMJ? What are the fact checker's credentials, and most importantly what is their track record? The extreme…
The entire idea of "fact checking" on social media is premised on the notion that fact checkers have some kind of superior epistemic merit compared to the checkees. When you're fact checking random people or journalists that may or may not be true, but why does Zucc think facebook's checkers are superior to the BMJ? What are the fact checker's credentials, and most importantly what is their track record? The extreme…
What really bugs me here is, everyone yells at facebook, saying it is spreading propaganda, lies, societal harm, etc. Then, fact checking is attempted, and people claim censorship, an imperfect job, and the idea that "How dare they!" I literally loath, hate, and despise facebook. But come on, they're only doing this because everyone piled on them, claiming they must fact check and validate things. If I was facebook,…
I don't see them as victims of demands for truthiness, but as actors participating in a deliberate charade.
FB's narrative is that the problem is the people who post untrue stuff, and fact checking will fix the problem (actually it won't, but it will show FB tried their best).
But the problem is FB's algorithm which promotes and publishes rampant misinformation. FB should be held accountable for what they decide to show people. Not deflect accountability onto their users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should indeed just ignore them, free speech wasn't arrived at as an optimal path by accident. Nothing changed to make it not-optimal. People need to adapt to not believing every stupid thing they read on the internet and actually thinking critically about things. The information streams of the world should not be tailored to the critical thinking ability of complete morons. It blows my mind we went from "trying…
> People need to adapt to not believing every stupid thing they read on the internet and actually thinking critically about things. Sure, free speech is optimal if this happens. But what if it doesn't happen? People are extremely irrational [0], and that certainly won't change anytime soon. What changed is that we got better at exploiting that irrationality at scale. There's no practical value in stating "in an ideal…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure about the prevalence but one major peeve of mine is when someone states, X is ten meters high. Fact check: Wrong, X is 9.6 meters high. It takes away credibility.
This is one of my favourites: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ Snopes acknowledges that a convicted terrorist (ie, someone that targeted civilians to enact political change) sat on the board of a BLM funding body then concludes 'mixture' because there is no universally agreed definition of 'terrorism'. > In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter…
There’s plenty to say about her actions, which are certainly terroristic, but her being “convicted” of terrorism is straight up not true, no matter how you feel about it. That’s why they say it’s mixed and subjective, because there is no objective fact you can point to that would back up the position that she was convicted of terrorism. She wasn’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of my favourites: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ Snopes acknowledges that a convicted terrorist (ie, someone that targeted civilians to enact political change) sat on the board of a BLM funding body then concludes 'mixture' because there is no universally agreed definition of 'terrorism'. > In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter…
I'd like to watch them sweat if you forced them to fact check "The 9/11 hijackers were terrorists" using the same priors. > In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions of Mohamed Atta - leading a group of young men to hijack planes and fly them into buildings — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism."