Good idea in theory, but needs to be applied equally. I've seen just as much bullshit on Gizmodo (and sister sites) and BuzzFeed as I have on FoxNews, and other like sites. It does seem a bit weird that they are only trialing it on right leaning sources. Coupled with the stuff the Damore lawsuit is bringing out, it makes me take a second look.
There also needs to be a distinction between reporting, and editorials. Every side is guilty of mixing in editorials masquerading as reporting along side reporting. It's extremely hard to tell the two apart. WashingtonPost; I need to look in the URL to see which category the content falls under.
I think an effective method would having something along the lines of the following for each site:
- This is a reliable source
- This is generally a reliable source
- This is sometimes reliable source
- This is not generally a reliable source
- This is not a reliable source
- This is satire
- This is opinion
> Paranoid conservatives have increasingly become certain Google is trying to silence them, citing its firing of engineers who allegedly created hostile work environments and a largely illusory panic about YouTube censorship.
>largely illusory panic
The link that is cited here is one talking about a Prager University video on the "1 in 5 women are raped" claim. Prager U is suing Google for 1st amendment violations. The article talks about how it isn't likely to get Google in much legal trouble because they are a private company. However it doesn't make much comment on if the "panic" is "illusory" or not. The examples given seem to indicate Google is actively censoring certain people they don't like.
[The Linked Article] > The complaint filed in California federal court includes charts of restricted videos compared to unrestricted videos on "similar topics." For example, Prager's video titled "Are 1 in 5 women in college raped?" is on lockdown, while a Real Time With Bill Maher video about The Hunting Ground; an interview with former Vice President Joe Biden on how to end the campus rape crisis; and Lady Gaga singing about rape all can be seen by YouTube users.
> As to the meat of the thing good conservatives are supposed to get angry about: Is Google flagging more right-leaning sites for review than left-leaning ones? Probably. But, uh, that’s also probably because a massive segment of the conservative media, particularly newer digital ventures like the Caller, are completely fine with brazen distortion and aren’t interested in the same journalistic standards as most parts of the mainstream media.
Hilarious that the links in this segment are to MotherJones and NewRepublic. Hardly unbiased sources, and none of the links are any kind of support for what is being talked about in this paragraph. I notice that a lot in these kinds of pieces, they think that putting links to other articles will somehow make them seem more well supported. When you actually follow the links they are nonsensical or throw you down a rabbit hole of checking event characterization.
This whole article is weird, the author admits that Google isn't doing a good job at their attempt at fact checking, but who cares? The people complaining are people we don't like!
some of the daily caller complaints seem to be google trying to text match the fact checking to an article and matching too liberally. i guess they are trying to do this because the url in the fact check site pointing to the original article sometimes becomes dead and maybe also because the same incorrect claim gets copy and pasted into other articles.
but i'm surprised they didn't go for the simpler version of just matching by the URL to start off with. i guess if you have cool text processing / AI tools at hand then you have to use them.
also, its quite possible that conservative sites aren't getting an unbalanced number of fact checks. the daily callers methodology was probably looking through a bunch of emails and tweets pointing them to fact checks on their property. they probably checked other sites by just putting random terms into a search engine. they shouldn't be surprised one of these techniques is going to generate more hits than the other :/
i'm also not sure how google could have provided this in a more fair way (ignoring the bad text matching). like a lot of the fact checking sites (snopes, polifact, etc) are considered biased by conservative sites. so there doesn't seem to be a way to provide third party fact checking without being attacked for bias.
This was on the front page of HN and then vanished. Does anyone know how/why they would happen without it showing as flagged?
I'm not a conservative (the very name implies that even if a conservative wins, all they get is to keep from losing). But it's clear Google has massive biases (at least in publicly visible representatives) and their fact checking (which I've only seen once or twice) has gone to biased sites like Politifact.
Good intentions, poor execution.
Fact checking is probably best done by a third party of the user's choosing. It's rare that a statement cannot be reasonbly argued from multiple angles. We simply have to pick the sources we trust and picking them for us is probably not the best solution.
I understand the desire to prevent fake stories, but probably much better to tie credibility to individuals so there's more at stake for them personally.