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

I Was a Facebook Fact-Checker (2019)

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: I Was a Facebook Fact-Checker (2019)

#41

Post by lenkite »

smt88 wrote: post #5
colordrops wrote: post #4

The main problem with many of these "fact checking" organizations and processes is that they often overstep their bounds. They work fine when they can source exact data and facts, e.g. a date, a number, the conclusion of a scientific study, the name of a person, and exact phrase that was said. But more often than not, they delve into opinion or judgement of vague or complex situations. This intermingling is not much…

The difficulty of objective fact-checking doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. To use that logic, we should also not have judges or a legal system. Most people would agree an imperfect attempt with lots of transparency is better than no attempt at all. The first thing you learn in journalism is that you can't be 100% objective, even if you're 100% truthful. Let's say you're reporting on Obama's birth certificate, and you…

As long as fact-checkers can be sued for incorrect and malicious fact checking and fact-checking isn't grounds for censorship and information suppression, I would be on-board with you.

The most that fact-checkers do when they are egregiously and utterly incorrect is a correction to an eye-rolling "needs context" label.

The standards of objectivity of fact-checkers (who are all left-leaning partisans) are ridiculously slanted. One set of strict standards for my opposition, another set of lax, wink-wink standards for myself - modern day "fact-checking". Any criticism of the same that becomes popular results in being banned.

Re: I Was a Facebook Fact-Checker (2019)

#42

Post by WalterBright »

raziel2p wrote: post #33
jdthedisciple wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That act of summarizing, of picking out which information is and is not important, is itself an act of journalism. Exactly, I'm totally with you. That is the essence of journalism I would even say. But that is where the job of the journalist ends, no sprinkling in of their own presuppositions.

It's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Sometimes, summarizing will change the whole meaning of the text. Journalists are not always equipped to determine what is important and what isn't (because they're not always subject matter experts, and don't have the budget to consult with one every time), and sometimes what's important to summarize will change based on your pre-disposed opinion. It's impossible for p…

> especially in a capitalist system where clickbait, outrage news etc. sells better than plain retelling of facts.

Government run news organizations with no profit motive have a very sorry record.

Re: I Was a Facebook Fact-Checker (2019)

#43

Post by [deleted] »

colordrops wrote: post #4

The main problem with many of these "fact checking" organizations and processes is that they often overstep their bounds. They work fine when they can source exact data and facts, e.g. a date, a number, the conclusion of a scientific study, the name of a person, and exact phrase that was said. But more often than not, they delve into opinion or judgement of vague or complex situations. This intermingling is not much…

[deleted]

Re: I Was a Facebook Fact-Checker (2019)

#44

Post by [deleted] »

jdthedisciple wrote: post #36

There was a video on YouTube titled "Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?". Of course that one has by now been "fact-checked" off YouTube. So even if I wanted to, I couldn't refer you to what was a very neat presentation of some of the issues with fact-checkers with clear evidence showing where these in fact present misinformation and demonstrate clear political bias. And that is the problem with fact-checkers. (In thi…

[deleted]

Re: I Was a Facebook Fact-Checker (2019)

#45

Post by Mordisquitos »

jdthedisciple wrote: post #36

There was a video on YouTube titled "Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?". Of course that one has by now been "fact-checked" off YouTube. So even if I wanted to, I couldn't refer you to what was a very neat presentation of some of the issues with fact-checkers with clear evidence showing where these in fact present misinformation and demonstrate clear political bias. And that is the problem with fact-checkers. (In thi…

> There was a video on YouTube titled "Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?".

A quick search of YouTube shows a very large number of videos using that (somewhat clichéd) title, so as far as I can tell that video may still be available. I call a fact-check on whether who fact-checks the fact-checkers was in fact fact-checked off YouTube.

Re: I Was a Facebook Fact-Checker (2019)

#47

Post by ObamaBinSpying »

jdthedisciple wrote: post #36

There was a video on YouTube titled "Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?". Of course that one has by now been "fact-checked" off YouTube. So even if I wanted to, I couldn't refer you to what was a very neat presentation of some of the issues with fact-checkers with clear evidence showing where these in fact present misinformation and demonstrate clear political bias. And that is the problem with fact-checkers. (In thi…

The fact-checkers will eventually be used to control the (political) narrative.

Re: I Was a Facebook Fact-Checker (2019)

#48

Post by amelius »

daniel_iversen wrote: post #20

A few comments; - firstly, just because you can’t eradicate all fake news and misinformation does not make the effort “doomed” - you can’t get rid of all crime in the world either, or all disease, but you can still try and reduce it and it’s a worthy effort. - the writer conflates a bunch of things - they wants the algorithms to be open, transparent and opt-in. While that would be nice, I don’t think that’s required…

> I don’t think that’s required to eliminate misinformation (nor will it solve it)

It might reduce it (see your first point).

Re: I Was a Facebook Fact-Checker (2019)

#49

Post by CharlesW »

lenkite wrote: post #41
smt88 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difficulty of objective fact-checking doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. To use that logic, we should also not have judges or a legal system. Most people would agree an imperfect attempt with lots of transparency is better than no attempt at all. The first thing you learn in journalism is that you can't be 100% objective, even if you're 100% truthful. Let's say you're reporting on Obama's birth certificate, and you…

As long as fact-checkers can be sued for incorrect and malicious fact checking and fact-checking isn't grounds for censorship and information suppression, I would be on-board with you. The most that fact-checkers do when they are egregiously and utterly incorrect is a correction to an eye-rolling "needs context" label. The standards of objectivity of fact-checkers (who are all left-leaning partisans) are ridiculously…

> The standards of objectivity of fact-checkers (who are all left-leaning partisans) are ridiculously slanted.

To anyone for whom facts that don't agree with their worldview are signs of a conspiracy, fact checking is pointless anyway. All fact checks that show they're wrong are just "proof" of the conspiracy.

Re: I Was a Facebook Fact-Checker (2019)

#50

Post by concordDance »

CharlesW wrote: post #49
lenkite wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as fact-checkers can be sued for incorrect and malicious fact checking and fact-checking isn't grounds for censorship and information suppression, I would be on-board with you. The most that fact-checkers do when they are egregiously and utterly incorrect is a correction to an eye-rolling "needs context" label. The standards of objectivity of fact-checkers (who are all left-leaning partisans) are ridiculously…

> The standards of objectivity of fact-checkers (who are all left-leaning partisans) are ridiculously slanted. To anyone for whom facts that don't agree with their worldview are signs of a conspiracy, fact checking is pointless anyway. All fact checks that show they're wrong are just "proof" of the conspiracy.

Do you disagree that the vast majority of famous fact checkers lean left, are partisan or have slanted coverage?

There's little need for a conspiracy here, just the Red Tribe distrust of institutions making them less likely to support fact checkers. And fact checkers get their money either from donations or from ads/clicks, so the incentive structure will push them left as that's the only way to survive in a competitive environment.

Post reply on HN