Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google and Facebook Working to Fight the Spread of 'Fake News'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Their audience.
If the fact-checkers are wrong, their audience calls them out on it.
So far, the fact-checkers are correct.
Google Search is not impartial, probably has never been. No one aside from Google knows how Google Search selects webpages. We just know of certain factors that contribute to page ranking. Google also tailors search results to each user, meaning that they are doing editorial work. You can easily end up in a “fake news” filter bubble based on what Google Search thinks is relevant to you. Moreover, Google earns money from search ads, thus they have an incentive to make sure to get the most out of page ranking. It should also be mentioned that there is evidence of direct manipulation of search results by Google.
Google is a black box and every bit of information that helps users understand what they see, certainly helps.
Anyone who has even a basic level education in humanities should understand the fundamental tenants of research and backing up contentions with verifiable facts. This apparent skepticism of fact checkers absolutely confuses me, and as far as I can tell it is largely unjustified.
I get that one time politifact graded a similar statement slightly worse from one guy than they did from another. In the two instances I personally looked at those, I could see why it happened. Largely 1) Different fact checkers having different grading choices, but still similar and 2) one party explaining what they meant and trying to clarify and the other party ignoring/giving the fact checkers the middle finger. Still pretty well within a reasonable margin of error IF you read beyond the little meter that pops up on the post.
You do. Unlike most fake news, they usually include their sources. So if you have a problem with their analysis, follow the links and decide for yourself!Who fact checks the fact checkers. Some dude, his wife and their cat?
Just took this screenshot from PolitiFact.
Attachments
The skepticism of fact checkers doesn't confuse me one bit. Lesser educated people don't want their world view challenged, and fact checkers are the ones who pose a significant threat in that regard. Academic "elites", and all that.
Well what was it then? Because I think the accusation that the moderator got it wrong in a serious way is a strong accusation and you should back it up.
Serious question:
See my post above. If a news outlet or blog reported his statements as true (which they were) but PolitiFact labeled it as "mostly false" would it be flagged as Fake News under these new guidelines?
Can you post the actual articles and not just the meters so we can see exactly what they said?
So what about all the fake news, and "liberal" and globalist propaganda in the mainstream media? Google and Facebook aren't too concerned about that, like the wild conspiracy theories about the Trump administration and Russia.
This is about the mainstream media trying to sabotage new media, and using tools like forcing big companies to remove their ads from Youtube etc. to undermine the income of new media. Mainstream media (who have been pushing PC globalist open borders-propaganda the last couple of decades) are slowly loosing their influence and income, and now they're desperately trying to stop the honest new media, who are giving true accounts of what's going on the world and big picture analyses without the BS-filter used by CNN, NYT, CBS, BBC etc. (where everything is "racist" and "sexist").
Mainstream media are the ones pushing "fake news" in many cases. Right now, we're being told that Assad used chemical weapons, without any investigations or proof. Of course, if Assad wasn't allied with Putin, wouldn't MSM would be more sceptical of making such unverified claims immediately after the attack? It could be the Islamist rebels (that the Obama administration armed) like in the past, but I'm sure CNN would tell us that such an accusation would be "Islamofobic". It never ends...
This is about the mainstream media trying to sabotage new media, and using tools like forcing big companies to remove their ads from Youtube etc. to undermine the income of new media. Mainstream media (who have been pushing PC globalist open borders-propaganda the last couple of decades) are slowly loosing their influence and income, and now they're desperately trying to stop the honest new media, who are giving true accounts of what's going on the world and big picture analyses without the BS-filter used by CNN, NYT, CBS, BBC etc. (where everything is "racist" and "sexist").
Mainstream media are the ones pushing "fake news" in many cases. Right now, we're being told that Assad used chemical weapons, without any investigations or proof. Of course, if Assad wasn't allied with Putin, wouldn't MSM would be more sceptical of making such unverified claims immediately after the attack? It could be the Islamist rebels (that the Obama administration armed) like in the past, but I'm sure CNN would tell us that such an accusation would be "Islamofobic". It never ends...
Last edited:
So now the foxes are guarding the henhouse.
I think these companies need a good dose of strong anti-trust enema !!
I think these companies need a good dose of strong anti-trust enema !!
You're right, Googs and FB (any credible news org, for that matter) should at least try to fact check their information. Using your anecdote - could fact checked info by the moderator possibly avoided the interruption of the candidates flow?
Referenced information is infinitely better that what we get today. On both sides of the political spectrum, people seem to justify making up stuff to "get a point across". Facts be damned. Anything that hinders the flow of that type of behavior is a good thing in my book. Who checks the checkers? IDK, but that question is a virtual ouroboro or Gordian Knot. Who checks the checkers checking the checkers checking the checkers; ad infinitum.
To do nothing accomplishes nothing and leads to nothing but more of what we have now... nothing.
Here you go: https://forums.macrumors.com/account/ignored
You can also ignore entire sub-forums: https://forums.macrumors.com/account/ignored-forums
[doublepost=1491583269][/doublepost]
Idiots can vote too ...
So...did YOU read this? The article directly and clearly explains why they gave him the fail...mostly because he also didn't read the whole thing.
"We’re familiar with Scott’s comments, which have roots in this 2009 report from the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan research agency.
Origins of this talking point
The CBO report, produced Nov. 30, 2009, examined how the law would affect health care premiums for people who purchase insurance through an employer-based group market (both large and small businesses) and for individuals.
As Scott said, CBO expected the average premium per person in new individual policies would rise 10 percent to 13 percent in 2016 compared with where it was before the law took effect.
In this market, average premiums per policy in this market would be about $5,800 for single policies (a $300 increase) and $15,200 for families (a $2,100 increase -- just like Scott said), according to CBO (pages 5 and 6).
If only the report ended there....
...Our ruling
Scott said that the Congressional Budget Office said people would pay 10 percent more for policies on the exchange, "so about $2,100 more for a family." What he doesn’t say is that these policies will have to offer comprehensive coverage. So people will pay more, but they’re also get more benefits. Additionally, the federal government will offer subsidies to many of these people to cut the cost.
It’s also important to remember the CBO’s "apples-to-apples" comparison. According to the agency, people in the individual market will actually pay less for the required amount of benefits under the Affordable Care Act than they would for those same benefits under old policies.
We rate Scott’s statement Mostly False."