Who's fact checking the fact checkers – a case in point re Covid | Hacker News Reader

Who's fact checking the fact checkers – a case in point re Covid

1 pointferalimal7 comments

Here's is a breakdown of some of the issues that are claimed to be fraud relating to covid 19:

https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/17/covid19-evidence-of-global-fraud/

And here is a fact check of fraud claims by USAToday found as FALSE:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/08/fact-check-post-claiming-covid-19-fraud-offers-no-evidence/3481311001/

Regardless of the claims, what is the fact checking process?

Firstly, if you read through the 'Fact Check' you will see this is NOT rigorous. USAToday state the claim, and then provide a official response to counter it. But the official response is what is being brought into question! It's literally accepting the final word from the defendant.

Secondly, USAToday chooses a poor example of the 'fraud claims' info on Facebook to debunk. Because of that, it can say that there is no info as to how there is fraud on the tests, that the author didn't respond to requests, etc. So, the fact check article does not even need to address the fraud claims.

By purposely selecting poor material, USAToday do not need to look into any fraud details. The can say 'no fraud' without explaining why.

But even so, this so called 'Independent Fact Check' is then used by Facebook, and presumably others, in order to warn people off the content.

Frankly, the process is a shambles. Information is presented to Facebook that questions the official story. Facebook ask a media expert (USAToday) to fact-check it. USAToday ask the officials who are being accused in the information for the final word. The information is labelled as FALSE.

This is a closed loop, and has nothing to do with getting to the truth.

As Orwell said in 1984: "Whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth."

An official source must be challenged by another official source with more extensive data and newer results. Random people on facebook cannot challenge because they are random people. In choosing between an official source and random guy on facebook, the statements are not equal and the official source takes precedence because they have accountability while random people do not.

It is a bit more complex due to stuff like whistle-blowing and so on, but in general credibility is something that must be earned, not given to every random person who states something.

I don't think any fact checker did a good job or influenced anything. It is mostly preaching to the choir and the result is mixed at best, not am improvement in my opinion.

True, credibility must be earned and that is a difficult and slow process, and it is given by individuals.

That said, it is true that you should not believe random people on Facebook. That lesson can quickly be learned in my opinion.

They can't stop the conspiracy believers but they hamper the rate of spread and make people think before clicking or resharing.

Not too sure about that. They are also introducing negative effects that can inhibit real investigative journalism, which already has become rare and the want for authoritative sources can be detrimental here.

They also politically aligned as we have seen in hindsight of the eternal election campaign we see for a few years now. Snopes and Politifact come to mind.

I can sympathize with positions like that, but I calling it fact checkers is way too much and they should have no authority at all, not even a larger audience.

Truth holds people accountable and this just ain't it, chief. They have already violated the basic tenets of honesty.

I don't follow US politics to know the examples you are giving, but keeping in mind the shit I've seen related to Covid, whatever can stop people from injecting themselves with bleach is worth keeping around. Call it whatever is your fancy.

Aside from the few examples where people actually do drink bleach, I am still convinced it is best to ignore these people and not write articles about them.

The average reader is most likely drawn to such stories to feel superior about other people, goes on to deride them for their education or intelligence and the targets will reinforce their views as they are, no matter how nonsensical. It is also one of the reasons why facts are not at all effective at combatting this.

And as I told you, there are the undecided who think that the topic is important, want to learn more, but lack the context. And we will go again in circles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com