Hacker News Reader

Comment by dingo_bat | Hacker News Reader

Bad move. A search engine should not be valuing certain websites more just because they proclaim to be "fact checkers". For example, politifact is usually trusty but some of their judgements are highly questionable. But Google will trust them and display their link prominently, even when it might be total bullshit.

View on HN

Yeah, but this isn't their search site, this is their news site. Google has become more than just a search engine.

"We’re also launching the fact check tag in these countries on news mode in Search"

So now it's also integrated into Google Search

I can honestly say I have never went into "news mode" on the main search site before. If I know I want to search for news stories I go to news.google.com and search there. At any rate you have to choose "news mode", it is not in the normal search screen.

I try to keep my facts in check, any examples of questionable politifact judgements?

Even if some were questionable, it doesn't mean there's a hidden agenda. Unlike the real 'fake news' outlets, where truth is intentionally skewed, hidden or muddied, with the intent of attracting the most eyeballs.

Attacking reputable sources -- which Trump does all the time -- is the main way to con supporters so they'll keep believing their #fakenews lies.

As is getting into arguments about fake news and continuing the meme. Figuring out how to work from a common set of facts is important, but this meme distracts from other important issues.

Fake news sites often have no "facts" at all. That's why people don't bother fact checking them. At worst, they'll crop up when somebody uses fake news for political purposes, example being Trump's racist birther lies, or his lies about crime rates.

Today's problem is that Trump is using the #fakenews label to attack reputable sources that call him out on his lies. This is an attempt to establish a false equivalence, and it's the core issue. It's extremely damaging to American democracy.

As many reputable news organizations (including the BBC) have pointed out, Trump is taking the same approach as Hitler, Mao and other dictators, and going directly against the line that previous US presidents have taken (at least, in public).

I understand where you're coming from. Take a step back. When you argue about this, who is your audience? What do you want to accomplish? Are you trying to mobilize people who already agree with you? Reach people on the fence? Convince those who disagree? How does your message sound to your intended audience?

Who you're trying to reach is up to you. I believe that using the term "fake news" is very unhelpful. At this point it's effectively without definition except as a perjorative dismissal, so you'll nearly always be discussing something with a different meaning for each party unless care is taken to define it upfront. If you're anti-Trump, you're continuing a meme used effectively by Trump himself. This meme is being used to further polarize, every side pointing to the others as being at fault.

Edit to add: Please don't misinterpret this to mean I don't think critical reading of news and calling out misrepresentation of facts or outright lies is important. This is very important. Doing so under the banner of fake news distracts so much from this effort that it works against it.

> I believe that using the term "fake news" is very unhelpful.

True, but it's the term Donald Trump uses to try to discredit sources that are not fake news. This is a matter of fact.

> At this point it's effectively without definition except as a perjorative dismissal

No. Fake news is completely made up news that is designed to look like real news in order to deceive readers, usually for profit. Examples: Trump was born in Pakistan, Pizzagate, George Soros paid protesters etc.

This is also a matter of fact.

Look at how people are using the term, including Trump. Look at the discussions here on HN. Memes like "fake news" have the meaning as they are used, regardless of a strict definition you'd like to keep it to. If you think you can convince everyone to use your definition and only your definition, best of luck to you, though I think that battle is already lost. If you're content knowing that you're using the correct definition and others are wrong, I fear you're not going to be effective in getting your message across.

I fear I'm in a similar situation with respect to this argument; at least in terms of my presentation, so I'll leave it at that. My sincere best wishes.

Well, I pointed out the factual uses. I'm not responsible for other people misusing the term (as Trump does) or failing to understand it. I'll leave you with Politifact:

QUOTE:

Fake news is made-up stuff, masterfully manipulated to look like credible journalistic reports that are easily spread online to large audiences willing to believe the fictions and spread the word. In 2016, the prevalence of political fact abuse – promulgated by the words of two polarizing presidential candidates and their passionate supporters – gave rise to a spreading of fake news with unprecedented impunity. Fake news: Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop. Fake news: Democrats want to impose Islamic law in Florida. Fake news: Thousands of people at a Donald Trump rally in Manhattan chanted, "We hate Muslims, we hate blacks, we want our great country back." None of those stories – and there are so many more like them – is remotely true.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/dec/13/...

A nice analysis of one politifact article:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/trump-4-politi...

Note that there are many such examples. Another exceedingly silly piece:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...

It's almost like a child wrote it. It "fact-checks" a reasonable guess.

Here you go:https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/politifa... ,and this one:http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414434/politifact-and-m...

I couldn't read the WSJ article through that link or through a google search.

I read through the NR article, and while the attempts to contact the authors of the fact check was lacking, I don't see the problem in the fact check itself.

ACA was basically saying you can't discriminate against any state licensed and certified health practitioner.

While I think homeopathy is bullshit, I don't see how else to do it, and claiming it gives "elevated legitimacy to alternative medicine" is misleading at best.

It's really far fetched as an attempt to show politifacts questionability.

I'm more inclined by the lack of evidence to the contrary to consider them generally trustworthy.

As a matter of fact, the ACA does legitimize alternative medicine by mandating that state licensure be the standard of legitimacy. Whether that's troubling or not is matter of opinion. As an opinion writer, Kevin Williamson shared his opinion. Politifact then disagreed with him, not on the merits of his premises, but on the argument itself. This would be perfectly acceptable as a rebuttal in the form of an editorial, but instead it was given an air of authority in a "fact check." This is a genre meant to convey to the reader that certain "facts" are beyond debate among serious people. It makes the journalist, or the "fact checker," the arbiter of what conversation can be considered "legitimate." It's so popular because it gives center-left readers the warm feeling of "knowing" that they need not confront and deal with an opposing argument. It can be dismissed as a lie. Ots done under the auspices of cold, disinterested public service, but it's comical to believe that the "fact checkers" are somehow immune from bias in a way other journalists are not. I'm sure a quick Google search for more examples would be fruitful if anyone were interested, but I assume that like all things people have already made up their minds on this.

But the basis for the "fact check" is right there on the site, they aren't hiding anything. State licensure is a reasonable standard. It's otherwise difficult to specify exactly what should and shouldn't be covered. It would also be more federal control. An editorial can claim that it legitimizes something, but clarifying what the ACA actually does (regardless of what you and I think of the effects) and concluding that it is misleading isn't editorializing.

Can't read the first source, but the National Review should never be cited as a legitimate source (the second link). It also reads like an almost raving rant...

I think you've just demonstrated why it's dangerous to have a single official keeper of truth. You're conflating policy judgments with factual correctness, but facts don't necessarily directly lead to policies. We must first judge the facts through our personal lenses of values, and that can lead to different conclusions.

National Review certainly has a political bias, but they're generally pretty good with keeping contact with reality, factually. The fact that they arrive at different conclusions is no reason to try to blacklist them.

It's just "National Review" and it's the preeminent conservative opinion journal. If it's illegitimate, then there can be no legitimate opposition I suppose? Maybe that's your point?

I've seen excellent articles in National Review from time to time. I'm not a regular reader by any means, but a blanket statement like this isn't useful. It leans conservative, but it's also pretty upfront about that fact.

It doesn't just "lean conservative," it is an explicitly conservative opinion journal, and an excellent one. Even if you are not a conservative, it's a great source for understanding conservative thought.

What if the popularity based content curation creates problems like mobs, genocide, destruction of democracies, destruction of alliances, destruction of the environment, destruction of institutions?

Think of smaller non-digital social groups and how bad a rumour can affect somebodies lives and how helpful is to have somebody respected who can break the positive feedback loop. Pre-digital communities faced similar problems of the digital media and they were able to build mechanisms to cope with these.

These companies are trying to implement similar mechanism to break these loops and are going to be effective only if the fact checking organisations do good job.

If it works our, we can have the information spread freely but displayed in a context. So If you a fact checking organisation proves to be reliable, users will be able to have more accurate understanding of the reality.

If the fact checkers fail, people will just disregard the judgements of these.

> But Google will trust them

Google will label them as 'Fact Check'.

And that's kind of what I expect from a news aggregator. Perfect addition really.

you've pointed out something wrong with politifact but think about how many times it has been used to debunk falsehoods. One bad case doesn't negate the whole source, that bad case just needs to be fixed.

it seems we're taking a step back with education, and credible news sources are being actively de-legitimized which will no doubt lead to more confusion and fake/propaganda news affecting large numbers of voters beliefs.

I think Google has an opportunity to help with this problem. I think all tech companies should take this problem on so that voters are at least making their decisions based on facts. I think this should be the biggest priority right now.

I somewhat agree, except that I don't think there is a useful objective metric for ranking search results. Or what would you suggest? PageRank can be played with SEO shenanigans.

So if somebody searches for vaccines, how should the anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers be ranked? Just because somebody has an opinion, does it deserve to be presented as likely as every other opinion? What if I start a new movement vaccines have a chance to turn people into spiderman, should my theory also rank equally to other vaccine sites?

<So if somebody searches for vaccines, how should the anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers be ranked? Just because somebody has an opinion, does it deserve to be presented as likely as every other opinion?

Real example. Bextra. Dr prescribed. Immediate loss of strength in legs especially climbing stairs.

Pro sites gave all +++ chat sites gave common experiences.

I want Google to not touch their search. They can put a good housekeeping tag on search results but don't remove them from my world

You mean you would have wanted a search result that talked about the side effect you experienced? Fair enough, but it is not clear that it didn't show up because of Google ranking, or maybe it simply didn't exist? In any case, this seems to be about a real side effect, not an imagined one.

I suppose I'm ignorant but I assumed search didn't qualify things. Like if it's true or not or somewhere in between.

I used Google to see if others had bextra problems. And thankfully a link appeared.

Now i hope these reactive changes don't eliminate content. Let my fingers do the clicking (so to speak)

There are always some ranking factors at play for ordering the search results.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com