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

Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#21

Post by jhayward »

rightos wrote: post #3

I really don't like the "fact checks" being done by news sites these days - that's your responsibility as a reader, tech can't do it for you. Even more reputable sites like Snopes tend to draw absolutist conclusions about things which I find are certainly not absolute.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

To make this statement is akin to saying that the opinion of experts is useless. This is exactly what has lead to the flood of conspiracy theories, malicious mis-statements, and general degradation of the media commons that has put us in our present state.

I do not have the infinite amount of time necessary to fact check the flood of bullshit in social media, much less deliberate BS in politically motivated media. I rely on curators and fact checkers, experts and analysts to winnow the very narrow set of confirmable facts and conclusions from the vast sewer that you would prefer.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#22

Post by dmix »

rightos wrote: post #3

I really don't like the "fact checks" being done by news sites these days - that's your responsibility as a reader, tech can't do it for you. Even more reputable sites like Snopes tend to draw absolutist conclusions about things which I find are certainly not absolute.

I'm not sure about your first claim but I have found a number of Snopes articles making binary (or qubit) assertions that were very obviously full of grey area or were simply wrong depending on context.

The worst offenders were typically politically slanted (as would be expected in any human run system or ideological subject) but not only that as many academic subjects are full of internal debates with varying priorities depending on context, which made me question the utility of relying on 'trusted' 3rd-parties like Snopes for fact-checking.

If the fact-checking sources are as editorialized or based on the author's worldview on what is 'true' then it's just as bad as the root source. What then is the point?

The utility is that they offer a bit of extended research on specific claims, which larger articles or speeches often can't go into for the sake of brevity, lack of research, or occasionally (and likely less so) intentional deception. Their utility should not be fact-checking in any absolute terms.

4chan has had useful research on a number of occasions, that have gone beyond other journalistic sources, but more often the motivation is not the truth but entertainment and like any open forum has it's share of conspiracies. It should neither be entirely dismissed or given some inherent 'authoritative' credibility. This is why context matters, a context currently beyond the scope of machines, and too dangerous for a few 'trusted' humans. There's no absolute authorities on a general internet-wide scale.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#23

Post by kylehotchkiss »

One thing I was thinking about was how to leverage Open Graph share details for less than reputable sites. If scammy sites lost the ability to have an image/description attached to share, wouldn't that be a powerful way to show maybe a link isn't reputable?

So many fake news sites are using high quality stock images fo OG share, and we are more or less conditioned to believe a headline with a high quality image attached, right?

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#24

Post by sova »

Karunamon wrote: post #14
sova wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree and maintain that news organizations and information organizations like Facespace, Google News, Twitter, etc, should have a "reliability value" beside links or stories that a large number of users are sharing or reposting. Even if it's just a simple "2% of users found this unreliable information" or "97% of 104 users find this source to be reliable." To say that the information distributors can publish wha…

That hypothetical score will just trend towards 50% as people who disagree with the slant of the story (or more realistically, the source, since people even here make knee-jerk judgments based on source without even reading the meat of the story) will vote it down and those who agree vote it up.

I am not suggesting a democratic end-user process, I am suggesting making the investment of a fact-checking department that any credible news source would be delighted to fund and create. The end-user process is the sharing, the veracity metric must be up-stream, or something that is triggered once a threshold number of users start sharing/approving something. To know the veracity of something that "goes viral" would be valuable, and the veracity metric is not something that end-users would be able to edit directly.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#25

Post by pilif »

>We are working to fix the issue that allowed this to happen

This is not some issue that you can fix. This is not some color being off, or some chat message appearing out of order. This is about AI in its continued infancy that’s now being actively and maliciously targeted.

It’s also about a huge responsibility of the worlds two greatest media outlets that both think they can have machines do a humans job and miserably failing at it.

Some users unable to log in? That’s an “issue” you “fix”.

Bringing the world closest it has been to the brink of a world war in the last 30 years, that’s the point where you step back and f'ing take responsibility for your actions and start rethinking your approach.

Sorry for the harsh words. I’m probably overreacting.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#26

Post by projektir »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #8
ceejayoz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do your own research!" is precisely how we wind up with conspiracy theories in the first place.

Critical thinking is a fundamental requirement of an educated electorate. Google and Facebook are culpable, but the news consumer is the problem. If you believe any information put in front of you, we've already lost. EDIT: @mikeash: We don't give up. I just don't know what the solution is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ @projekti: If "it doesn't scale", your only option is to meet with your representatives with a lobbying group, and intr…

This doesn't scale. There's too much information out there for even the most critical of voters to verify.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#27

Post by tomjakubowski »

dmix wrote: post #22
rightos wrote: post #3

I really don't like the "fact checks" being done by news sites these days - that's your responsibility as a reader, tech can't do it for you. Even more reputable sites like Snopes tend to draw absolutist conclusions about things which I find are certainly not absolute.

I'm not sure about your first claim but I have found a number of Snopes articles making binary (or qubit) assertions that were very obviously full of grey area or were simply wrong depending on context. The worst offenders were typically politically slanted (as would be expected in any human run system or ideological subject) but not only that as many academic subjects are full of internal debates with varying priori…

> 4chan has had useful research on a number of occasions.

Like what?

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#28

Post by KekDemaga »

kartan wrote: post #20
rightos wrote: post #3

I really don't like the "fact checks" being done by news sites these days - that's your responsibility as a reader, tech can't do it for you. Even more reputable sites like Snopes tend to draw absolutist conclusions about things which I find are certainly not absolute.

> that's your responsibility as a reader I live in Sweden. How do I fact check what happens in a neighborhood in the USA? How do I know that a result of a clinical test is reliable? Do I check it on another on-line source? Do I spend millions on R&D and do my own analysis? Or just few thousands going to Las Vegas and gathering my own data? Or do I need to wait for a Newspaper that actually has fact-checking? > Even m…

> I live in Sweden. How do I fact check what happens in a neighborhood in the USA?

I question the utility of you having any opinion on US politics, especially at the local level. You are certainly entitled to one but I don't know what it gets you without a vote.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#29

Post by KekDemaga »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #27
dmix wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about your first claim but I have found a number of Snopes articles making binary (or qubit) assertions that were very obviously full of grey area or were simply wrong depending on context. The worst offenders were typically politically slanted (as would be expected in any human run system or ideological subject) but not only that as many academic subjects are full of internal debates with varying priori…

> 4chan has had useful research on a number of occasions. Like what?

They found a isis training camp: https://imgur.com/gallery/NpC7k
Post reply on HN