Comment by QuercusMax
5 years ago
Fact-checking obvious lies is a "progressive value"? Wow, that really shows how bad things have gotten.
5 years ago
Fact-checking obvious lies is a "progressive value"? Wow, that really shows how bad things have gotten.
It has as least as much to do with not fact-checking the claims of people you agree with. Politics is replete with lies. Remember "all 17 intelligence agencies"?
The idea of neutral just-calling-balls-and-strikes fact-checking in politics is a fantasy. The only thing that actually works is debate.
By choosing what to fact-check you can make any agenda. In practical terms there really isn't an "objective truth discoverable by journalism".
I'm pro slander tho, twitter should be able to pin a tweet in every account saying trump has small hands. Americans in general don't see how great chicanery is for a country.
If the lies are obvious, why do they need "fact checking"?
Because, for better or worse, the sources of truth that normal people historically relied on for their barometer of what is true or not have been democratized by the internet.
We live in a world where a substantial number of people believe the earth is flat, that 5G cellular is a mind control scheme, that vaccines cause autism, that COVID-19 was created by a political party, that the concept of climate change is manufactured, or that major national crises are actually just actors being paid to further a political narrative.
Most of these ideas aren't new, but in decades past you might have heard about them from a conspiracy-therorist neighbor, a low profile website, or an alternative magazine with little reputation of its own.
Now, these ideas are spread on the exact same platforms as objectively truthful / scientifically sound media. Your Youtube conspiracy theory channel is right next to the BBC's videos. Your viral Facebook post could be from the New York Times, or it might be from a propaganda organization - or worse, an account that looks like a normal person but which was specifically created to spread misinformation that seems plausibly truthful.
Credibility is distributed and anyone can publish to a huge audience, which is wonderful sometimes, and othertimes deeply problematic, because the viewer often doesn't know enough to distinguish fact from fiction and can't trust the publisher at face value anymore.
Its uncharted territory. The cost to distribute is zero, and ideas spread far and wide - but that means that there are equally as many incredible sources on any given topic as credible ones, and telling the difference is hard, and sometimes not knowing the difference is dangerous. Dunning-Kruger writ large.
I agree.
The question is, if it's hard to figure out who you can trust, then who can you trust to decide what's fact and what's fiction?
I think trusting any one person or organization to decide is dangerous. Everyone has biases, including the people making decisions at Twitter.
I'd prefer to see the arguments for both sides clearly laid out - "Here are the arguments for and against". Ideally anyone would be able to contribute to either side. Maybe giving each argument its own HN-style discussion.
4 replies →
Just commenting to say that this was a well written reply
2 replies →
Conspiracy theory-type ideas are a threat, but I just want to add on that many partial truths or inaccuracies or falsehoods appealing to biases spread even more easily too. Depending on your side of the debate, you can make well-cited cases for or against minimum wage increasing unemployment, or immigration lowering wages. I haven't researched, but I bet mail-voting fraud too. To the point where the real truth isn't even clear, but people don't recognize the uncertainty.
I'm not sure if this ever hasn't been an issue, but it kinda comes to the heart of fact-checking. I think treating the kinds of falsehoods that get spread online as just obvious conspiracy-theories by nutjobs puts your guard down for things that sound and feel right, but are wrong.
Great post.
I also think that poor general education has also been exposed. People lack general science education and critical thinking skills. Just look at all the 'gotcha' posts of people giving scientists a hard time for changing their positions as new information is learned, when that is exactly what a scientist is supposed to do.
The other part drives these conspiracy theories is not just that they share a platform with legitimate sources, but also the algorithms. Someone clicks on a single story that is borderline conspiracy out of curiosity, and now they are served them at every turn. It's easy for a person to get lost and think that what they are being pushed is the entire world.
By the way, I think you're being downvoted because of this statement:
We live in a world where a substantial number of people believe the earth is flat, that 5G cellular is a mind control scheme, that vaccines cause autism, that COVID-19 was created by a political party, that the concept of climate change is manufactured, or that major national crises are actually just actors being paid to further a political narrative.
I've noticed there is a contingent on HN that do believe in some or all of these things.
6 replies →
What a lot of people are realizing now is that these democratized news sources are both sometimes a lot less credible than the corporate media, and sometimes a lot more credible than the corporate media.
When you can have people gather clips of text/video to show a corporate media entity contradicting itself, or hiding relevant facts when reporting on a situation, etc. in real-time, it becomes it becomes clear that it is not merely a bias, but in many cases an agenda which drives them (an agenda which may be political, or may merely be the pursuit of ratings and scarce advertising dollars).
> can't trust the publisher at face value anymore
So you don't think mainstream media lies too, all the time, like politicians? RussiaGate is still unproven and by all definitions, a conspiracy. What makes them any more allowed to shill but individuals cannot?
1 reply →
Because some people can't think for themselves, unfortunately.
Not false but this is not a justification for the ministry of truth. If anything it is an argument against it.
^ Exhibit #1, typical progressive elitism, moderated with a carefully thought last word as to signal the rest of the group he is not actually a bad person.
1 reply →
Because people don't engage in critical thinking and many are predisposed to consider statements made by people in positions of high authority as fact.
Very few statements are entirely true or entirely false. So let's not pretend like "fact-checking" is an ideal.
Whoever is doing the "fact-checking" wields great power that can very easily be abused or subverted, similar to the ministry of truth in 1984. This is what people are concerned about.
And while that is clearly an extreme, even a small bias in the fact-check is greatly amplified given the number of users on Twitter/Facebook/etc.
Mail-in ballots have been linked to voting fraud in the past. See the 2017 Dallas City Council and the 2018 North Carolina congressional race for example.
Maybe if twitter wants to start fact-checking Trump, don't start with him tweeting that water is wet.