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

How to Mislead with Facts

consilienceproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 297 posts

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#21

Post by medstrom »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #18
darawk wrote: post #14

I love the idea of this article, but it doesn't address the reason things are the way they are. Facts get checked for literal accuracy because that's what's easy to actually do in a reasonably unbiased way. We stop there not because that's all we want, but because everything after that is too messy to even come close to systematizing. If they've got a well thought out framework for systematizing high quality contextu…

All the "fact checking" sites I am aware of are heavily biased. It seems very unlikely that they actually try to be unbiased in their checking. It already starts with selecting the facts they check (cherry picking).

I would ask you to please identify the ones to which you apply this criticism, for epistemic hygiene.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#23

Post by zerop »

The PR teams create perceptions and narratives by misleading with facts on social media, in ways mentioned in this article. But I think people get it after a while and it can't be used for long term perceptions and narratives.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#24

Post by mandmandam »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #18
darawk wrote: post #14

I love the idea of this article, but it doesn't address the reason things are the way they are. Facts get checked for literal accuracy because that's what's easy to actually do in a reasonably unbiased way. We stop there not because that's all we want, but because everything after that is too messy to even come close to systematizing. If they've got a well thought out framework for systematizing high quality contextu…

All the "fact checking" sites I am aware of are heavily biased. It seems very unlikely that they actually try to be unbiased in their checking. It already starts with selecting the facts they check (cherry picking).

You're 100% right. An unbiased perspective would call the arms, pharma, media, agricultural and oil industries out far more.

The bias is so widespread many people don't see it, like fish not realizing they're wet.

Whole shelves of books get written about the illegal wars media cheerleads; and about the unconscionable and unimaginable atrocities regularly committed by big agriculture and fossil fuel.

Yet we drown in pure distraction; "debating" whatever clown shit Ben Shapiro or Trump or Biden just said, or tilting at such windmills as trying to cancel Joe Rogan for having conversations with people.

"We live in a time when all elites, whether on the left or the right, believe in rigid rules that say there is no alternative to the present political and economic system." - Adam Curtis

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#25

Post by noacct152437 »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #18
darawk wrote: post #14

I love the idea of this article, but it doesn't address the reason things are the way they are. Facts get checked for literal accuracy because that's what's easy to actually do in a reasonably unbiased way. We stop there not because that's all we want, but because everything after that is too messy to even come close to systematizing. If they've got a well thought out framework for systematizing high quality contextu…

All the "fact checking" sites I am aware of are heavily biased. It seems very unlikely that they actually try to be unbiased in their checking. It already starts with selecting the facts they check (cherry picking).

No post body was provided.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#26

Post by Chris2048 »

zekica wrote: post #16
oreally wrote: post #6

"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche

Scientific method tries to get as close as possible to facts. The issue is that popular press and "influencers" ignore limitations in studies and always tell just their interpretations while pointing to "the science".

It's not even limitations. It's studies that are non-peer reviewed, or non-replicated (not failed to replicate sometimes, just hasn't yet been replicated).

Especially certain subjects where poor, biased, studies seem rife. They take a study and run with it because a scientific study is "science", even if a study is just one step one the way to an accepted truth.

Sometimes is more explicit, cherry-picking certain studies over others; possibly even dismissing those with the "bad" result as biased (or *-ist).

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#27

Post by throw3838 »

noacct152437 wrote: post #25
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the "fact checking" sites I am aware of are heavily biased. It seems very unlikely that they actually try to be unbiased in their checking. It already starts with selecting the facts they check (cherry picking).

Quoted post unavailable.

Facebook recently admitted at court, that its fact checking is "personal opinion" rather than authoritative source. They did it to avoid fine.

If something claims authority, but with no responsibility and no oversight...

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#28

Post by mandmandam »

noacct152437 wrote: post #25
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the "fact checking" sites I am aware of are heavily biased. It seems very unlikely that they actually try to be unbiased in their checking. It already starts with selecting the facts they check (cherry picking).

Quoted post unavailable.

How many "fact checkers" broke the artificial consensus view on the lab leak theory being "impossible"? None that I saw. The facts were pretty clear from the start if you actually read Daszak's bullshit, as eventually became clear despite the removal of millions of posts.

I recently saw USAToday "fact check" the claim that Fauci once said masks provided no protection from Corona. This was classed as misleading and lacking context - despite the fact Fauci said this on primetime national TV. There's video for it easily findable (thought certainly a little hard to find thanks to search engine fuckery). - https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/03/fact...

Did any fact check sites cover America's lies to go into Iraq?

How many of them looked into the promotion of a known torturer and destroyer of congressional evidence to a top US position?

How did your favorite fact check site cover the Deepwater Horizon spill? Are they talking about Stephen Donziger?

We could go on all day, but it's farcical that anyone still believes these people.

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#29

Post by xdennis »

noacct152437 wrote: post #25
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the "fact checking" sites I am aware of are heavily biased. It seems very unlikely that they actually try to be unbiased in their checking. It already starts with selecting the facts they check (cherry picking).

Quoted post unavailable.

Example:

Rittenhouse carried a gun. Left wing sources said it was illegal and he was charged with it. Right wing sources (e.g. Viva & Barnes) said it was actually legal because of how the law was written and predicted it would be dismissed by the judge.

Politifact factchecked the claim that it was legal as false.

The judge dismissed the charge.

Politifact updated their page, not to admit they were wrong, but to double down that they were in fact right, not the judge. [1]

In many cases, fact checking websites strawman the claims to dismiss everything. In this case instead of factchecking "Rittenhouse was legally carrying" they fact checked "Rittenhouse was PERFECTLY legally carrying" so that when it turns out it was legal they can say "Yes, but not PERFECTLY legal".

[1]: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-p...

Re: How to Mislead with Facts

#30

Post by xdennis »

throw3838 wrote: post #27
noacct152437 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Facebook recently admitted at court, that its fact checking is "personal opinion" rather than authoritative source. They did it to avoid fine. If something claims authority, but with no responsibility and no oversight...

And the judge bought it:

> The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.

[1]: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Faceb...

Post reply on HN