YouTube is major conduit of fake news, factcheckers say(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
YouTube is major conduit of fake news, factcheckers say
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/12/youtube-is-major-conduit-of-fake-news-factcheckers-say
51 comments
So these "factcheckers" are literally the media aka the propaganda machine. I wonder if that's the future we want, a future only politically correct opinions are accepted, otherwise you're called a liar and you lose social points. It doesn't sound like democracy, but who knows.
you are abusing the word 'fact' here. A political opinion is by definition not a
fact.
The whole problem is that nuance is getting lost. In the 80s, a scientist could say 'I have found some troubling signals, there is a 90% chance something bad is going to happen, can we discuss this?' and they would discuss, do risk analysis, come up with mitigating steps.
But now it is 'are you sure this will happen' and of course any scientist will say 'it is very probably, but naturally one can never be 100% sure' and the media will slam him for false news and shape it into their politically advantageous story.
These factcheckers should try to dilute the extremes, and bring nuance in the debate. That's what we need, and that has nothing to do with being politically correct. This is literally the job of the media, which they start to neglect.
The whole problem is that nuance is getting lost. In the 80s, a scientist could say 'I have found some troubling signals, there is a 90% chance something bad is going to happen, can we discuss this?' and they would discuss, do risk analysis, come up with mitigating steps.
But now it is 'are you sure this will happen' and of course any scientist will say 'it is very probably, but naturally one can never be 100% sure' and the media will slam him for false news and shape it into their politically advantageous story.
These factcheckers should try to dilute the extremes, and bring nuance in the debate. That's what we need, and that has nothing to do with being politically correct. This is literally the job of the media, which they start to neglect.
>These factcheckers should try to dilute the extremes, and bring nuance in the debate.
That's what they should be doing, but instead we get stuff like this[1], which poisons the well for "fact checking" as a whole.
[1] https://twitter.com/msnbc/status/785299708730339328
That's what they should be doing, but instead we get stuff like this[1], which poisons the well for "fact checking" as a whole.
[1] https://twitter.com/msnbc/status/785299708730339328
What does that even mean, to "acid wash" a server?
You may be conflating "false information" with "politically incorrect statements".
I'm not an American, but these "fact checks" are not really based on actual facts, but mostly on "correct" opinions.
For example, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/06/january-6... or https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/04/bidens-cl...
For example, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/06/january-6... or https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/04/bidens-cl...
The whole notion of facts is problematic.
Facts are, from a epistemological point of view, things as they are. We do not have access to facts about the physical world, science does not produce such facts. Empirical science is a process that asymptotically approximates facts by eliminating false propositions.
Facts are, from a epistemological point of view, things as they are. We do not have access to facts about the physical world, science does not produce such facts. Empirical science is a process that asymptotically approximates facts by eliminating false propositions.
If I take 200mg of cyanid I am dead that's a fact.
That is a true statement, but it is not a fact in the epistemological sense. When we say a statement is true, what we mean is that the statement agrees with the facts.
Or flipped around: The facts are the things that true statements correspond to, the things in themselves.
Or flipped around: The facts are the things that true statements correspond to, the things in themselves.
I think we have different oppinions of what the word fact means but the general consens is something like this. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
Here is a more nuanced take: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
There is serious problems with facts merely being true statements if you start poking at the edge cases a bit.
Consider that there are things that are, and statements that are true. If the two are the same, then all statements that are true must also be things that are. But it is true that if I were to lick my own forehead, it would become wet; yet I cannot lick my own forehead. This is an example of something that is true, yet cannot be. The statements that are true is a larger category than the things that are.
There is serious problems with facts merely being true statements if you start poking at the edge cases a bit.
Consider that there are things that are, and statements that are true. If the two are the same, then all statements that are true must also be things that are. But it is true that if I were to lick my own forehead, it would become wet; yet I cannot lick my own forehead. This is an example of something that is true, yet cannot be. The statements that are true is a larger category than the things that are.
I totally understand your standpoint and I will dive deeper with your provided link but as I said before for the general public a true statement is indeed a fact.
And just for shits and giggles https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/03/man-claims-to-be-only-person-... haha
And just for shits and giggles https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/03/man-claims-to-be-only-person-... haha
Isn't that the entire point of this "fact" checking, to raise the truth above the myriad of things the general public merely believes to be true?
I believe you have it in reverse. "fact" checking is there to show a minority of people that the information they are about to consume is against what is believed to be true by the scientific community and the public at this point in time.
Surely, what is true is not determined by what the majority believes?
That would be a fact only after you did it, and it's a fact only to those who witness it.
It could never be a fact to you, because if you're dead, you'll be quite incapable of knowing it to be fact, and if you survive, it will be wrong.
The person with whom you're debating appears to have a philosophical understanding (likely logical positivist or early Wittgensteinian) of the term "fact" rather than the common dictionary definition.
The dictionary definition isn't necessarily wrong, but it's a different language-game (i.e. different context).
The consensus on the definition of the term is irrelevant to the subject of this thread. There is no way to form of a body or committee dedicated to the identification and preservation of what is fact and fiction because the facts, the things that are the case are based on our perception of them, and we can be wrong.
People make mistakes, and can persuade others to agree with their mistaken interpretation, or people can be persuaded to deliberately falsify their interpretation of data in exchange for something they want.
What is fact and fiction is ultimately impossible for any group of people to be responsible for without bias -- people have their personal beliefs, their own agendas, they can be bribed, lobbied, persuaded, agitated...
The wise among us do not trust newspapers or media outlets, and even treat scientific discovery with academic scepticism until the math checks out. Fortunately in the sciences, we can check the work of others by making predictions and testing them, as well as checking the math.
Take a news article and filter out everything that would be considered weak or bad science. You will be left with a statement of something that happened, perhaps a picture or video of the thing happening, or in many cases you may even be left with an entirely blank page.
There has always been fake news, as long as within the news there has been the expression of opinion. People aren't motivated by a pursuit of the truth, they're motivated by earning money and notoriety (and thence more money). Motivated by ego. This is what people are instructed to do from childhood.
As long as our primary currency isn't truth, you cannot trust anything but what you can prove for yourself. And even in that world where truth is what we all aspire to find, you still can't trust anything blindly -- because people can still make mistakes.
Nothing is fact to you unless you can prove it based on something else you accept as a certainty, and nothing is a fact to people other than you unless you can prove it based on something they accept as a certainty.
It could never be a fact to you, because if you're dead, you'll be quite incapable of knowing it to be fact, and if you survive, it will be wrong.
The person with whom you're debating appears to have a philosophical understanding (likely logical positivist or early Wittgensteinian) of the term "fact" rather than the common dictionary definition.
The dictionary definition isn't necessarily wrong, but it's a different language-game (i.e. different context).
The consensus on the definition of the term is irrelevant to the subject of this thread. There is no way to form of a body or committee dedicated to the identification and preservation of what is fact and fiction because the facts, the things that are the case are based on our perception of them, and we can be wrong.
People make mistakes, and can persuade others to agree with their mistaken interpretation, or people can be persuaded to deliberately falsify their interpretation of data in exchange for something they want.
What is fact and fiction is ultimately impossible for any group of people to be responsible for without bias -- people have their personal beliefs, their own agendas, they can be bribed, lobbied, persuaded, agitated...
The wise among us do not trust newspapers or media outlets, and even treat scientific discovery with academic scepticism until the math checks out. Fortunately in the sciences, we can check the work of others by making predictions and testing them, as well as checking the math.
Take a news article and filter out everything that would be considered weak or bad science. You will be left with a statement of something that happened, perhaps a picture or video of the thing happening, or in many cases you may even be left with an entirely blank page.
There has always been fake news, as long as within the news there has been the expression of opinion. People aren't motivated by a pursuit of the truth, they're motivated by earning money and notoriety (and thence more money). Motivated by ego. This is what people are instructed to do from childhood.
As long as our primary currency isn't truth, you cannot trust anything but what you can prove for yourself. And even in that world where truth is what we all aspire to find, you still can't trust anything blindly -- because people can still make mistakes.
Nothing is fact to you unless you can prove it based on something else you accept as a certainty, and nothing is a fact to people other than you unless you can prove it based on something they accept as a certainty.
Sorry, but language does not work like that. I am not going into a discussion about Schoppenhauer and the world as will and representation on HackerNews lol.
Oh dear, don't just throw a name and a book title at me. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kant, Wittgenstein, Popper, Derrida... none of them got it right or else we wouldn't be having discussions like this one!
But all of those philosophers got closer than anyone in the last 70 years or so because they didn't just throw names and books at each other, they thought for themselves and engaged in debate.
But all of those philosophers got closer than anyone in the last 70 years or so because they didn't just throw names and books at each other, they thought for themselves and engaged in debate.
And they also stepped away from a discussion that has no chance to come to fruition.
There really is no getting away from philosophy. Your entire world view is steeped in tacit assumptions from many of those names you dismiss.
I am not dismissing philosophy I am just not engaging in discussions about it on the internet. When there is no need to even bring it up in the first place our society has a general consciences about what a word means this is shown in most if not all the dictionaries in the world. You both are dismissing this by bringing philosophy to the discussion. 99% of the world does not care about the philosophical meaning of the word "fact" they are interested in the meaning of the word in the general conscience.
Those in power will always conflate the two.
Google "BMI letter to Mark Zuckerberg"
Fake news, a.k.a. information and opinions we don’t like and that go against our narrative.
In Stossel v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al, Facebook says its “fact checks” are opinion. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear Google’s lawyers characterize theirs in the same way. I don’t give someone’s opinion more weight because they call themselves a fact checker. The “truth” (i.e. “facts”) is often complicated and subjective, especially in politics. The lack of compassion for other peoples’ perspectives that underlies this whole “disinformation” movement lately is sad.
Fact checkers being called opinion in a legal argument is very different from what they deal with in the real world.
No one is using legal arguments when they spread things like vaccine denial.
Those are things that fact checkers are used to Combat.
No one is using legal arguments when they spread things like vaccine denial.
Those are things that fact checkers are used to Combat.
Thank god we have these fact checkers now, otherwise we would actually have to use our own judgement as adults, and we all know where that leads - people coming to the "wrong" conclusions!
In Germany YouTube banned the channel achgut.com which kind of does solid work, although providing some alternative views. They lost in court (as far as I know multiple times), but they are not afraid of banning since the penalties are rather small.
https://www.achgut.com/artikel/youtube_verliert_erneut_gegen...
https://www.achgut.com/artikel/youtube_verliert_erneut_gegen...
So sayth the factcheckers who outed themselves … repeatedly.
What's next? Factcheckers probing religion? Give it a break. No one has the absolute truth. How about a film for my window: "That is not a car jacking outside, fact checkers say".
Once again fact checkers state the obvious.
> The letter from the factcheckers, who challenge claims made by domestic governments, online posts and media organisations, states that YouTube’s failure to tackle disinformation and misinformation is especially marked in the global south, a term that refers to nations in Latin America, Asia and Africa. Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower, has referred repeatedly to concerns over safety controls in non-English language markets as a key factor in her decision to go public about problems at the social media company.
>The signatories, who include factchecking groups in India, Nigeria, the Philippines and Colombia, include examples of false content about the reign of the former Filipino president Ferdinand Marcos – whose son is running for office – and the amplification of hate speech against vulnerable groups in Brazil.
>The signatories are from more than 40 countries with a range of funding backgrounds. They include: Full Fact, a UK charity, Washington Post Fact Checker, funded by the eponymous newspaper, Spain’s Maldita, a factchecking foundation; and India Today, a unit within the privately owned TV Today Network.
The effort of getting misinformation tackled in the global south is incredibly hard.
Especially with the prevalence of things like WhatsApp which don’t have a public facing stream to be examined.
>The signatories, who include factchecking groups in India, Nigeria, the Philippines and Colombia, include examples of false content about the reign of the former Filipino president Ferdinand Marcos – whose son is running for office – and the amplification of hate speech against vulnerable groups in Brazil.
>The signatories are from more than 40 countries with a range of funding backgrounds. They include: Full Fact, a UK charity, Washington Post Fact Checker, funded by the eponymous newspaper, Spain’s Maldita, a factchecking foundation; and India Today, a unit within the privately owned TV Today Network.
The effort of getting misinformation tackled in the global south is incredibly hard.
Especially with the prevalence of things like WhatsApp which don’t have a public facing stream to be examined.
If they ban YouTube channels that have been shown to be spreading “misinformation” then we should also ban private news organizations when they are caught spreading politically motivated misinformation.
They are no different except that people in general know to be skeptical of YouTube videos, while trusting reporting of mainstream media to be truthful.
Every single time mainstream media has reported on an incident that I myself was very familiar with they have ALWAYS misreported it.
They are no different except that people in general know to be skeptical of YouTube videos, while trusting reporting of mainstream media to be truthful.
Every single time mainstream media has reported on an incident that I myself was very familiar with they have ALWAYS misreported it.
Yes, and the main source of lies called RT exist absolutely officially, spreading Goebbels-style national hatred and crazy anti-vax disinformation.
who checks the fact checker ? what about freedom of speech ? this sucks !
This just in, mainstream media and cable news also a major conduit of fake news, fact checkers don't want to admit.
By fact checkers you mean what? People at the media orgs?
No
> A letter signed by more than 80 groups, including Full Fact in the UK and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker
> A letter signed by more than 80 groups, including Full Fact in the UK and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker
What do you mean “no”. It’s literally the media?
The people who publish lies have now nominated themselves “fact checkers”.
That’s ironic.
The people who publish lies have now nominated themselves “fact checkers”.
That’s ironic.
Oh sorry I read ‘media ongs’ instead of ‘media orgs’ in your first reply. For that I replied “no”. There’re no ONG, but yes, obviously there’re also media companies but not only. By the way they are all members of the Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).
This is the original article: https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/youtube-misinform...
Anyway there are
This is the original article: https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/youtube-misinform...
Anyway there are
Hey thanks for the reply. May want to call your doc for possible stroke.
Ahah, will do, my optometrist I think!
Sorry for the asshole reply, but appreciate the response! It’s all good.
100%. Note that what what these groups call “facts” is what we have historically have been calling opinion. They don’t try to fact check things like the color of grass, numbers of moons that Saturn has, or the molecular formula of water.
Facebook literally refers to fact-checker statements as “opinions” in their legal terminology.
Facebook literally refers to fact-checker statements as “opinions” in their legal terminology.
> Facebook literally refers to fact-checker statements as “opinions” in their legal terminology.
I believe this, but do you have a link? I'd love to show my family this.
I believe this, but do you have a link? I'd love to show my family this.
of course. Somehow same companies dont see all the get rich quick scheme ads on their platforms.