The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Nate Silver on "The Rise and Fall of 'Fact-Checking'"
"'Fact-checkers' as the high priests of journalism had a political beginning at Facebook — and have met a political end."
From Silver's Substack newsletter yesterday:
So, the news is that Facebook is eliminating a partnership that began in December 2016 with independent fact-checking organizations and replacing them with a Twitter/X style Community Notes program.
To which I say: that sounds fine, actually….
My impression is that journalists who label themselves as misinformation experts or fact-checkers have a relatively poor capacity for self-reflection, perhaps because these are such self-aggrandizing labels to begin with. But that's a hard claim to prove. It might be wrong, and even if it's mostly right, I'm sure you could point to counterexamples. Conversely, I have a relatively favorable impression of Community Notes on X. But it's a relatively young program, and community-driven moderation can be hard to scale and can eventually develop its own toxic hierarchies — and Facebook is a much bigger platform than X.
I just don't think it has done journalism much good to have a group of people specifically designated as misinformation experts or fact-checkers — that should be everyone's job. And although I don't really trust Zuckerberg's motivations, it was fact-checkers who pressured Facebook for the partnership in the first place, not the other way around. It's another chapter in the long history of journalists trying to [sow] ground with Meta and not liking what they reaped.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I’m off Niate after he said he ran hundreds of statistical scenarios about Trump vs Harris and it came up almost 50-50. A sure sign your variables are not related to what is going on.
^^^ someone else who doesn’t understand probability.
Me: the chance of a thrown fair 6-sided die coming up 6 is 1 in 6.
(Throws die). Oh, it’s a 6.
PKTMLB: That’s a sure sign your variables are not related to what is going on.
It was almost 50 50. Was he being sarcastic?
No.
Nate said “it was almost 50-50”
What makes Pete’s repeated comments especially funny (ie, worthy of mockery) is that his username seems to try and tout his logical skills. Yet he fails spectacularly at something that (let’s be honest here) is about as basic-logic level as one can imagine.
My prediction of his reaction to Silver’s (hypothetical) baseball forecast for 2025:
Silver, in March: The Cardinals will be a break-even club, or even very slightly below break-even.
[actual result]: The Cardinals finish 82-80.
Pete, in October. “Man, Silver was incompetent. He predicted the Cards would lose at least as many games as they would win, and he was wrong. Ha, ha ha. He’s such a hack!!!”
In Logic they teach you never to argue a factual by a contrafactual.,
So, I already knew you didn’t know Logic. I am not tying what I say to your silly baseball example.
Users know you made up that quote and it shames you greatly
As PhD Statistician William Briggs says of such stupid statements as yours. YOU have to assume it ought to come up 1 in 6 times.
There is no chance before you throw the dice, it is epistomological not ontological. Given all the variables (throw, wind, table surface, friction, etc.) it can only come up one way.
Objective Bayesianism
Are you saying a model which predicts a 1/6 chance of each of 1 through 6 coming up is worthless?
He’s saying that he doesn’t want to admit he doesn’t understand the subject so he’s throwing out chaff.
It is if the die is not truly such that one side is not loaded.
You are arguing against Objective Bayesian analysis by assuming the die will come up as you think it should
Josh, Re-reading your clueless ‘private math’ reminds me that you don’t realize that even the making of dice is statistically controlled.
They use Deming-Shewhart Control Charts; the manufacturing of dice are as subject to my logic as the rolling is !!!
Yes, if I didn’t understand probability and was called out on it, I’d want to throw random sentences and meaningless references together in a vain and desperate attempt to show that I knew what I was talking about.
I looked up your man Briggs: https://www.wmbriggs.com/
He seems very self-satisfied. I suspect he also seems very plausible to the ignorant. I wonder how you happen to come across him.
And I’m still right, that you cannot judge the correctness of a probabilistic forecast on the basis of one trial, though I don’t have a PhD in stats.
I was a statistician for US Bank, I did Statistics professionally.
Nobody talks about one trial !!! And ‘self-satisfied’ marks you as a fool. You can be not self-satisfied and wrong and self-satisfied and right
You are trying real hard to act as if you are an Objective Bayesian but no such person would misuse those three words like you do
There is no point at which trials point or don’t point to correctness.
AND: You are not judging the correctness of the forecast but of the MODEL. There is no forecast without a model.
and a forecast is a forecast there is no such thing as a probabllistic forecast. Your problem is ENGLISH
You may have done stats but your knowledge of probability seems highly deficient.
there is no such thing as a probabllistic forecast.
Sure there is. The chance of of fair 6-sided die not coming up 6 is 5/6. There’s a 40% chance of rain today. The odds of AFC Wimbledon getting promotied are 3 in 5.
As opposed to, it won’t be a 6, it wont rain, and AFC will be promoted.
The problem, which you exhibit a tenuous and self-misleading grasp of, is how to determine whether a probabilistic forecast is right. And the answer is, for a one-off forecast, you can’t. Only with a large number of trials can you develop greater and greater confidence in the basis for your predictions – what you call the model, though it need not be.
Got that, everybody, “seems highly deficient” Seems — allows wiggle room. And highly negates the seems, sorat like saying I don’t know if there is a sun up there but it seems highly massive.
One trial? Silver drastically underestimated Trump in three straight elections.
Really? I thought he said it was a tossup in three straight elections, and you got three straight elections where the outcome would have been reversed if only 50-100K votes had changed in strategic states.
Silver is a poll aggregator. As such, it is the polls that underestimated Trump in each of 2016, 2020 and 2024. Silver’s value added is in aggregating the polls to both a probability of winning and an expected margin of victory.
In 2016, he had Clinton at 71% and +3.6% in the popular vote (actual 2.1%). In 2020, he had Biden at 89% and 8% (actual 4.5%). In 2024, he had 50-50 and Harris +1% (actual Trump 1.5%).
The po
Yeah, in 2016 Silver was one of the few commentators consistently calling out the mainstream media for treating Hillary like a prohibitive favorite when the polls never supported that narrative.
In 2020 he did see Biden as a pretty big favorite and Trump nearly won – but that was due to Biden historically underperforming in the electoral college relative to the size of his popular vote win.
In 2024 he saw the race as close and it was.
Silver’s not a prophet and I’m sure he’s got a liberal bias which comes out at times. But overall I see him as one of the more objective election commentators.
Yeah. My impression of Silver is that *all* he does is look at other polls. It’s not like he conducts them himself. His value-added is that he does make his own determination about how credible or incredible (non-credible?) a given poll or pollster is. So, I do think it ignores some of the worst pollsters on both sides, and discounts historically-unreliable pollsters (again, on both sides).
(If I had to have guessed, I actually would have put Silver in the Slightly-Conservative box. From his writings; he seems quite a bit more conservative than he was 8 years ago. That’s just my hot-take, though…not based on more than my internal reaction. Interesting to read that others see him as a bit more to the Left.)
santamonica811 — Re, the different takes on Silver’s personal political valence; problems like this come up so often I think they deserve to be characterized. My suggestion: “ideological parallax.” As the observer moves rightward, objects in the middle ground (Silver, for instance), are subject to an illusion of moving leftward in relation to a presumably fixed background.
I doubt Silver has moved much at all ideologically. If the observer is moving left, Silver is seen to move right. If the observer is moving right, Silver is seen to move left.
I expect Silver to provide some added value, over and above what I can get from blindly averaging all the polls. Maybe I expect too much.
I think his prediction that the most likely outcome was Trump sweeping the swing states, and the second most likely outcome was Harris sweeping them, is value added.
Yes, there is no forecast without a model. But I again ask is the model that produces a forecast that the die will come up a six 1/6 of the time a worthless model? And I am with SRG2, that forecast sounds probabilistic to me.
re: “I was a statistician for US Bank”
Either you’re lying or you are utter crap at communicating. Your comments so far are coming across as a word salad. And I say that as someone with a lot of experience both doing and teaching statistics at multiple levels.
This is the sily argument “Yes, Briggs has a PhD but it’s not a good one” said by someone who admits they don’t have one either.
Laughable.
You can’t judge it on any finite number of trials. Even in your world there would be p-value and margin of error.
Now I ask you, why does even a low p-value equate in your world to “absolutely true” ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t5lHXAvuLQ
Is that the Will Briggs at the U of Lynchburg?
No, probably not…
Here it is, quite old now, but you have not seen it.
If you love it you can pretend you don’t to save face.
But it’s a kiler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbf_TXqEY-Y
Stupid Niate!
Actually Nate criticized the pollsters for so many polls that were right at 50-50, which was OK nationally, but certainly were not correct for several of the swing states, the consensus on Arizona was <2% but he won by 6, Nevada was .3, but Trump won by 3.
However Georgia and NC Trump won by only 2, and that's about what the polls showed. WI, PA, MI were all by less than a point, which is hardly a huge miss for the polls.
Nate is not a pollster he's a election modeler, that uses polls for input.
Silver had AZ at Trump 2.4%, NV Trump 0.6%, GA Trump 1%, NC Trump 1.1%, WI Harris 1%, MI Harris 1.2% and PA Trump 0.1%.
His predicted most likely outcome (20% of the time) in the 7 swing states was a Trump sweep. Next most likely (16%) was a Harris sweep.
Most likely “an ice age” …next most likely “torrid desert-like conditions” If you aren’t laughing you don’t get the incongruity of that.
it was fact-checkers who pressured Facebook for the partnership in the first place, not the other way around
Well yes, because fact-checkers care about reducing the amount of misinformation on the internet and Meta does not.
Where “misinformation” eventually devolves to just “stuff we disagree with or don’t want people seeing”.
Exactly.
During the relevant period, James Taranto (who used to have a daily column on Wall Street Journal’s website) was highly critical of the “fact-checking genre” of journalism. His basic objection was that it was nothing more than opinion-journalism masquerading as fact.
It’s philosophy. NO fact is self-interpreting. Bernard Lonergan killed and buried that “In the work of Bernard Lonergan, the phrase “already out there now real” refers to the idea that some things are already known, or are part of the universe, without being perceived. Lonergan believed that intellectual conversion involves eliminating the myth of the “already out there now real””
And whenever you have a statistics-based fact (as W Edwards Deming showed , prompted by philosopher C I Lewis) you must have a model and make your criteria explicit. So If I speak of people living in a certain area, I have to be clear about who is visisting, the survival rate of children born on the day I take the count, mortality etc) Just consider how many people leave an area as citizens but are not coming back (they die, they move, they get a divorce out of state and not all return, a baby is killed in abortion etc.)
Babies are killed and you count them as abortions??? Those seem like murders to me. (Another example of your “logic” being used, perhaps?) Or is it possible that you mistyped and you meant to write “foetus?”
Read what I wrote. I called an abortion a killing of a child that without abortion would be counted by the natural child mortality rate as ‘people living in a certain area”
The “oe’ dipthong was dropped from Latin origin words about 200 years ago.
I don’t think this is nearly as clever a take as you think it is, Brett. It confirms to the rest of us that you don’t much mind being factually incorrect.
Look at every time I discuss this with Sarcastr0: He always starts out talking about how “disinformation” is exclusively false. And then immediately backtracks as allows that something could be true and be ‘disinformation’ if it might lead people to bad conclusions.
Really, in practice, that IS all misinformation means: “Stuff I’d like to suppress”.
1) Sarcastr0 is not correct.
2) You need to figure out if you’re bitching about disinformation, or misinformation, which are two distinct concepts.
3) Disinformation is false, always. It is lying, which you and your ilk do not have any problem with.
What Jason said. Sarcastr0 is wrong to the extent he says that disinformation can be true. Misleading information can be true, but not disinformation.
The American Heritage Dictionary and Wikipedia set the threshold for “misinformation” at “misleading” rather than “false”.
I dunno… the actual definition Wikipedia gives is
But it does also include misleading information elsewhere so… maybe no one really knows.
But that is illogical since ‘misleading’ has to do only with your audience.
This is very short and BEAUTIFULLY makes my point
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_i0QrK2814
What is the difference between incorrect and factually incorrect ?
Have you ever seen The Holy Grail? “Blue. No, yellow!”
Except you have no idea how clever Brett thinks it is.
THis is what I am saying about statistical predictions.
Oh good lord, shut the fuck up Goober.
Not surprisingly, much of what is labeled “misinformation” turns out to be correct
If by “much” you mean “some”, I agree.
To both of you : Information is secondary to data. Correct is not in the data, which tell you nothing, it is in the interpretation.
Read the exstensive literature on diet recommendations.
Whereas none of what Joe_dallas posts turns out to be correct.
What about Sonja_T?
Interestingly enough, our resident amateur epidemiologist, climatologist, economist, historian, etc., Joe_dallas, just recently claimed the Trump Tower bomber was an Islamic Jihadist.
No wonder he doesn’t like anyone labeling something “misinformation!”
Heh, good one
What those “fact-checkers” care about is irrelevant. What matters is what they do. And what they did was a miserable failure. Given the inherent cognitive biases and human frailties, what they attempted was impossible and anyone outside that group of “carers” could see it at the start.
Good intentions are not sufficient for good policies.
To liberals, they are sufficient.
I thought you said liberals don’t have good intentions. Get your story straight!
They went scraping through Farcebook looking for things they didn’t like. Farcebook put me in “jail” for a day for something I had written 15 months earlier — I instead eliminated my account.
“fact-checkers care about reducing the amount of misinformation ”
Snort. They care about the ego trip.
And the sweet money too.
There’s bad semantics in saying “reducing the amount of misinformation” because of several factors.
1) You can deduce correctly from what is bad starting data.
2) Most misinformation is in the lack of reporting anything at all about a topic. So the perversion of trans folk, the abortion horrors, the link of gun violence with broken families, etc)
3) Even perfect so-called information does nothing to undo the inablility oif many to process it. I remember the news reporting the amount Bloo mberg spent on the NY campaign. THis is astounding
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_i0QrK2814
4) Facts are INFINITE, there is no set quantity of facts !!!
“Well yes, because fact-checkers care about reducing the amount of misinformation on the internet and Meta does not.”
Fact-checkers care about getting paid for saying they’re reducing the amount of misinformation on the internet.
Nothing in this world is free, including information, and very few people really care whether or not you have access to truthful information.
Speech is free. Publishing is not the same as speech, and remains costly. Disregard of that distinction has led to a lot of nonsense among folks who comment about internet publishing.
So a published speech,is, what ???
Now we are getting somewhere truthful vs factual. HUGE DIFFERENCE. But both eliminate value, which is what virtually everyone really wants to get at.
You can report abortion as freedom or as a death spiral for civilization. Freedom would not be truthful, esp if you are that baby.
Same with trans. It is a perversion if anything ever was, yet truthfully it is done for money and many many regret it and it destroys their life
UCLA Pauses ‘Unethical’ Study Designed to Mentally Distress Trans People
This study showed the whole lie of the trans movement but it was suppressed. Fortunately, the woman researcher is being sued.
What is a fact depends from the start on what are your values.
Dietrich von Hildebrand, a prominent philosopher, is known for his “philosophy of value” which posits that values are objective realities that hold intrinsic importance, demanding a proper response from individuals based on the nature of the value itself
Well yes, because fact-checkers care about reducing the amount of misinformation on the internet
LOL! Oh, wait…you were serious?
Fact-checking got started because the mainstream media were no longer courageous enough to call out lies.
David Gregory was an example. On his Sunday show a politician (usually a Republican) would lie his head off and Gregory would not correct him. He left it to the Democrat, which made the issue look debatable. Gregory is on record stating that it wasn’t his job to report the truth.
As someone put it, if Republicans started saying the Earth was flat, the media would not point out the falsehood. Instead we would see a headline, “Shape of the Earth: Views Differ”.
Lol, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
The media reported that it was false. Don’t you remember?
It took a very long time for them to admit they pushed and defended a blatant lie.
How many of them challenged the much more recent lie that Joe Biden is “sharp as a tack”?
Now do “men can be women”
How about “non-biological kids can be the children of non-biological parents.”
What about it? (And what’s a non-biological kid or parent? Robots?)
Maybe I phrased that poorly.
When X adopts a kid Y we regularly refer to X as Y’s “father” or “mother,” right?
That’s true.
Is your argument that parents adopt children, ergo Jules should give a foot massage to a man in a dress?
I doubt he’d buy it.
Is your argument biology is destiny for foot massages, but not for parentage?
That’s up to Jules. My argument is that your argument is a non-sequitur.
His point is clear and relevant. You’ve got some selective sensitivity about language precision that seems exactly calibrated to marginalize trans people. Also, you hate trans people. Coincidence? Computer says “no.”
As I said, his point is a non-sequitur. The pact that people adopt children doesn’t imply that Jules has to give a guy in a dress a foot massage. And that has nothing to do with language
That just speaks to your well-known reading comprehension problems. Probably a learning disability — you should get it checked out.
we regularly refer to X as Y’s “father” or “mother,”
Seems language-related to me!
Now, maybe your Jules argument was a non-sequitur, I’d give you that.
No, dumbass.
The argument was, dumbed down for someone like you:
People can adopt children, therefore men can become women.
And it’s a non-sequitur whether you understand it or not.
Retarded. Seek help!
That wasn’t the argument. The argument was, “Child refers to the result of procreation; one’s child is the product of one’s sperm and one’s partner’s egg.” (Or vice versa, for women.) And yet, when one adopts a kid, one describes him/her as one’s child even though one’s sperm/egg was not involved, because the government declares that legally the person is one’s child.
Jules the foot fucking master, got his foot massage technique down, he don’t be ticklin’ or nuthin’
Malika coming in strong with “married couples are not REALLY family because they are ‘non-biological'” energy.
Biologically, or socially?
I regularly referred to my late stepfather as my “dad” or ‘father’ even though that was not technically correct. Mom remarried when I was 4, and that was all I ever knew.
But biology still matters. If the kid’s biological parents had a genetic predisposition to alcoholism or obesity or cancer, those won’t disappear when he legally becomes the child of a different set of parents. As he gets older, he may need to school his behavior to mitigate those genetic and biological predilections.
In like manner, a man, even one who identifies as a woman, will still have the genetic and biological predilections of a man. In some contexts, that won’t matter. In others, it will. That man, even though he identifies as a woman, ought to get his prostrate checked and screened for testicular cancer.
If ‘men’ has a referent, then a man can’t be a woman.
Can a flower be a stone? Not is they have an essence that allows you to name them in the first place.
Consider the logical ramifications.
Somebody like the man who now goes by the woman’s name Autumn Scardina (she started the Masterpiece Cake suit) — what was she before the operation? A man…okay. Now he gets an operation and is a woman for sure. Then if he/she de-trans then she must be a nothing because where is the difference between his first state and last state?NONE. The whole trans thing can only mean you are neither male nor female except if you have the operation which certifies you are what you say.
ILLOGICAL
By the way her is the barkingingly un-feminine man Autumn Scardina
https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/20d44308-2e5a-4d6a-9dcb-c2470f1f5863/Autumn.jpg/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:400,cg:true
“As someone put it, if Republicans started saying the Earth was flat, the media would not point out the falsehood.”
OK, but if the media says, “Republican falsely says that the Earth is flat” that still leaves the viewer with “Shape of the Earth: views differ.” Unless the viewer knows the Earth is round, in which case the fact check in unneeded.
Didn’t some fact checks say something more, like “click here on NASA.com for evidence the Earth is not flat?”
Perhaps. Ultimately “fact-checks” become counter arguments and counter arguments, and we should probably just call them that.
You think “here’s evidence for the Earth being flat” is just a counter-argument of a counter-argument?
In the particular case about the shape of the Earth? No. I don’t think fact-checking claims about the shape of the earth are necessary.
I thought the shape of the earth was a metaphor for issues that might be disputable.
TwelveInch — Discussions of publishing must confine themselves to practicalities with regard to facts, and avoid principles too refined for prompt application.
Would-be political actors would be well-advised to follow that same dictum. In politics, insistence too demanding to follow high principles tends toward violence.
Sure, but claims like “Trump falsely says that Obama was born in Kenya” aren’t particularly helpful if I don’t already know that it’s false. “Trump says that Obama was born in Kenya, but his birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii” is better.
Also, the application seemed a little one-sided. I don’t think I ever saw a headline, “Biden falsely claims his son was killed in Iraq” for example.
Also, the application seemed a little one-sided. I don’t think I ever saw a headline, “Biden falsely claims his son was killed in Iraq” for example.
Then you weren’t looking very hard at all! Here’s a quick example I found from the extremely left-leaning Daily Beast:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-biden-repeats-false-claim-that-beau-biden-died-in-iraq/
There are of course many examples from more right-leaning outlets.
https://nypost.com/2022/10/13/biden-wrongly-says-late-son-beau-lost-his-life-in-iraq/
And fact-checks!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-bidens-son-beau-210300568.html
Fair enough.
This is what my dumbest cousin says, tiny pianist, that nothing is knowable and hence everything is debatable.
The rest of us are smart enough to recognize a distinction between facts and opinions. Opinions are debatable, like, what should we do about the debt? The answer depends on things like your risk tolerance and values. So you debate it to see where the common ground is and where compromises can be.
Facts are susceptible to science, but not debate. It doesn’t do any good to debate whether the Earth is flat or whether ivermectin is effective against COVID. For those questions, the truth is out there! You can do science to help uncover the truth, but your opinion is garbage.
“Republican falsely says that the Earth is flat” only leaves dumb viewers with the impression that “Shape of the Earth: views differ.” It leaves less dumb viewers with a different impression, not because they trust the media but because they know that people’s views on the shape of the Earth are totally irrelevant. The smarter take is that some Republican is challenging a pretty well-known fact for some reason, probably in order to confuse the dumber half of the country like yourself into thinking that the “issue” is up for “debate.”
I guess your dumbest cousin is way smarter than his dumbest cousin.
“The rest of us are smart enough to recognize a distinction between facts and opinions.”
You’re not smart enough to understand the difference between facts and opinions.
Some things we can observe. Most things we cannot. So we have to draw inferences from the things we can observe. And the best inference to draw from a set of observations is often a matter of opinion.
And the best inference to draw from a set of observations is often a matter of opinion.
No, it really isn’t. There are very well-understood ways of drawing inferences from a set of observations, statistics being the central one.
You could say that the best conclusion to draw from a set of second-hand inferences about a set of observations is often a matter of opinion driven by the perceived credibility of those sources… but that’s not what my dumb cousin means. She wants to debate the underlying facts, not the credibility of different takes on the various published papers. The Republican in the example is also talking to the underlying facts. “Republican Questions Conclusions of Tiny Pianist Report on the Shape of the Earth” would be a very different headline.
“There are very well-understood ways of drawing inferences from a set of observations, statistics being the central one.”
Good to know there’s no opinions involved in statistics!
And in any event, we don’t individually have time to do a lot of statistics, and most of our judgements about the world aren’t based on statistical analysis.
“You could say that the best conclusion to draw from a set of second-hand inferences about a set of observations is often a matter of opinion driven by the perceived credibility of those sources… but that’s not what my dumb cousin means.”
I don’t know your cousin, but that’s where we get most of our information that ultimately is derived from statistics. So lots of opinion.
Just as one example, many of the left believe that it’s a “fact” that false accusations of rape are rare, in the single digits. This is due to studies like this one. This is reported as fact all over the place. But if you look at the study, especially table 2, you can see that it doesn’t establish that any accusations are not false.
I never said people are never wrong about facts. It happens all the time. But that doesn’t make facts debatable. It doesn’t do any good for me to say “I think false accusations of rape are rare because I did my own research (i.e. googled
false rape
) and determined that it doesn’t happen very often.” And then you say “Well, you’re wrong because false accusations of rape are very serious and can derail a young man’s life.” That is a totally meaningless conversation.I agree your hypo is a meaningless conversation.
So do you think false accusations rare, or common?
I don’t have any opinion on the matter, as it’s not one that’s susceptible to opinions.
Lol. You don’t think people can opine on whether or not false accusations of rape are rare or common?
People do it all the time.
Your claim that such a thing is “not susceptible to opinions” is akin to a claim that the world is flat.
You have confused yourself beyond recognition. I feel sorry for you, tiny pianist.
First you agree with me that statements like “I did my own Googling and figured out that false accusations of rape are rare” are “meaningless.”
Then you say, that very observation is akin to flat-eartherism.
The only way that makes sense is if you’re a flat-earther.
Or, you’re too drunk and frustrated for your brain to work.
My money’s on the latter. But you can still win if you admit to being a flat-earther.
So we have to draw inferences from the things we can observe. And the best inference to draw from a set of observations is often a matter of opinion.
Twelveinch — Want a more reliable method of inference? Try this: the best inference to draw from a set of observations is one you can arrive at by making those inferences critique each other. And if you can’t get anywhere when you try that, withhold your opinion, and look for more observations.
That’s how smart folks do it when there is a penalty for drawing the wrong inference. It remains a superior method even without the penalty. The alternative, to impose your pre-existing opinion on an ambiguous set of observations is unwise by comparison.
I know some fact checks rated Obama saying “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” as gospel and then later said “Pants on Fire”.
Both wrong, you are arguing agasint some presumed fact using contrafactuals. Has no value whatsoever.
But most of the lies originated with the media. Courage is NA here.
I was actually a member of a private group on FB, just a bunch of old friends who’d met on line at now defunct sites such as DuPont’s “Intellectual Capitol”. We just liked to discuss the issues of the day. Mostly conservative STEM types, but we had our liberals, still do.
As a private group, of course, it was only visible to people who were invited in, so we weren’t offending anybody. Out on the rest of FB, we stuck to uncontroversial stuff like sharing recipes.
This went on for some years without trouble, and then about the time FB started importing the fact checkers, we started getting warnings from 3rd party moderators FB had given carte blanche to look into private groups and shut them down. We’d get locked, and our organizer would get some ambiguous complaint about ‘offensive content’, that was never specific about exactly how we had offended. Then after a while we’d get unlocked, and resume discussion, and the cycle would begin again.
I guess we were just supposed to keep self-censoring until the busybodies were happy, without knowing WHAT we were supposed to censor.
We eventually had to abandon FB for MeWe over it.
So I can personally testify that the third party moderators and fact checkers that FB was bringing on were uniformly left-wing, and pretty fanatical, too.
On community notes: This uses a technique I’d read about before Musk adopted it for Twitter: Computer analysis automatically looks at communications between users, and identifies clusters of users who tend to agree with each other. Notes are then promoted on the basis, not of majority agreement, but being agreed to across clusters of people who ordinarily disagreed with each other.
It’s a pretty hard to game system for identifying actual consensus, rather than just letting the majority win.
Your anecdote does not in fact enable you to accurately testify that FB’s fact checkers were “uniformly left-wing.”
Come on…
No, it was a fair complaint, surely SOMEWHERE one of FB’s fact checkers must have been right wing. Maybe. At least not observing such a rare beast doesn’t establish that it didn’t exist. There might actually BE a unicorn behind that tree.
Pro-Palestinian groups regularly claimed FB unfairly censored them.
Pro-Palestinian groups regularly celebrated murder and terrorism on FB, and then claimed that they were unfairly censored. It wasn’t impossible, but it took a LOT to get the moderators’ attention if you were on the left.
I one time performed an experiment: Found, without much trouble, an Antifa page where they were openly discussing assaulting people in public. Just as a test I reported them.
A week later I got a brief note that they’d been looked at, and nothing contrary to TOS found…
Truth is one and lies are infinite.
It is a lack of thinking that opines that ‘left wing’ defines something.
Who is doint the defining? Answer me that. If you call me a Christian Nationalist and I don’t , what value can that have >
The photo sharing site Flickr used to promote photos based on how popular they were with people who didn’t usually follow the poster. As a former oscilloscope user I thought of the “AC coupled” setting. A high pass filter. The Algorithm only cared a little about how popular you were in the steady state. It cared about how popular this photo was relative to the baseline.
AC coupling is a fair analogy.
Don’t worry, I heard the same anecdote from my lefty friends.
They did such a good job pointing out the erroneous use of the terms “Assault Rifle/Weapon”, and if I hear the phrase “Semi-Automatic Machine Gun” I’m going to rend my garment (I rend alot of garments)
Frank
As I posted on a thread on the main Reason pages:
I think we need to distinguish between fact-checking entities and the general idea of fact-checking. You can hold that all current fact-checking entities are biased, partisan, lying, etc while also holding that having a non-partisan and unbiased source of fact-checking is a good idea. After all, pretty much only Communists and post-modernists deny the existence of objective truth and it should be possible that when a politician utters a lie or a misleading statement, some entity can credibly say, “this is a lie” or “this is misleading”.
But do the majority of people actually want such an entity? Or would they prefer that true fact-checking is applied only to the other side’s politicians and major supporters, etc?
I also think that in general people are inclined to believe a fact-check depending on the accordance with their prior conception.
If a politician says that government spending falls under GOP presidents, will GOP supporters believe it when a fact checker says that’s a lie? Do they even want to hear it?
If a politician says that murders from assault weapons are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans in 2023 (and then using the stat to call for a ban), will Democratic supporters believe it when a fact checker says that’s a lie? Do they even want to hear it?
Yes, and who in this great, big world benefits most from the populations of the US and the Rest of the West being unable to agree on what is true and what is false? Does any particular person come to mind?
Have you been asleep for the past decade? (Or do you just consider MAGA to be post-modernists?)
You should have your water source checked for excess lead.
He wanted to say fluoride, folks!
Why would I have wanted to say fluoride? Dumbass Queenie. Go back to eating your lead paint chips.
Fluoride is more toxic to adults.
You could be the Poster Child.
Uh oh, My Cousin Vinnie (with the low ASVAB score) is splitting with MAGA!
RINO!
Oh no? I’ve never been MAGA, what’s your point halfwit? I didn’t say fluoride, because I didn’t mean fluoride.
92 is low? Damn. I bet you thought your 32 was really good? If you’ve ever even taken the ASVAB. Queenie, Matriarch of the Retards.
“My Cousin Vinnie”
You’re… insulting him by claiming he’s nailing Marisa Tomei? Interesting choice.
Alternatively it’s a rhetorical device forcing Trump supporters either to accept there is objective truth or to align themselves with Communists and post-modernists.
Thank you. I thought I was going to have to say that. And thank the rest of you for illustrating the point.
But it’s not just MAGA, it’s Republicans. All politicians lie, but like most bothsides, one side does it a lot more. So the MAGA can find examples to whatabout with.
Also, one should note Nate Silver seems to be going Glenn Greenwald.
Which ignores the gravity of the lie because you can’t measure it.
A child lies a hundred times more than many politicians who, however, are grievously immoral for what they lie about.
Have you been asleep for the past decade? (Or do you just consider MAGA to be post-modernists?)
You’re completely beyond hope. It isn’t MAGA folks (or the right in general) regularly using terms like “my truth”/”your truth” unironically.
Kellyanne Conway isn’t MAGA?
The basic problem is that, while fact checking itself is a valuable service, the field attracts partisans who want to put a thumb on the scale, and do. Both in terms of what they decide to “fact check”, and their level of skepticism.
It’s a fundamental principle of life in a democracy, that once an institution or activity is identified as having impact on the outcome of elections, partisans immediately attempt to take it over and use it for political purposes. Fact checking has largely fallen to this pressure.
More basically , like the non-reporting on the abortion horror, you have already decided what people should be concerned about so they stay in the dark.
How many Blacks have been amazed by my abortion stats for example
\black women are 5 times
more likely to have an abortion than white
women. A recent study released by
Protecting Black Life, an outreach of Life
Issues Institute concluded that, “79% of
Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion
facilities are strategically located within
walking distance of African and/or
Hispanic communities.”
AND
“Since the number of current living blacks
(in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents
an enormous loss for, without abortion, America’s black
community would now number 41 million persons. It would
be 35 percent larger than it is currently. Abortion has swept
through the black community cutting down every fourth
member.”x
Biden is the KKK to the Black Commnunity . NOTHING at all to help the woman who doesn’t want to kill that Black baby. NOTHING
“How many Blacks have been amazed by my abortion stats for example”
Lol, you’re hilarious.
That being a Black woman’s name, I sense you had an abortion and don’t want to ‘go there’
There is also the point that if politicians on one side of the political divide is significantly more wont to lie than the other, supporters on that side will assume that a significant difference in the proporttion of lies reported for the two sides will be taken as evidence of partisan bias, not of their politicians’ lying.
The issue here is that if you’re doing fact checking, and you and your co-workers are all on the same side of that political divide, whose lies are you going to notice/care about? The perception that only one side of the political divide is lying is a product of being on the OTHER side of the political divide, it’s not an objective judgment.
Generally both sides will be lying. Sure, they’ll be lying about different things, but they’ll both be lying.
Consider a sports analogy: some basketball teams play a rougher style, some a more finesse style. Or some take it to the hoop or play an inside game more. Of course there’s going to be more potential fouls for some teams. You can’t just sit back and say “oh, they called more fouls on team X, and since every team wants to win and therefore will commit the same number of fouls, this is evidence of bias!” This is just how cynics and partisans think.
Look, Democrats DO routinely lie about certain subjects. They’ll make stupid claims about people being murdered with AK-47s, or that nobody ever gets an elective late term abortion, or that Trump lunged for the steering wheel in a car where it couldn’t be reached from the back seat, and everybody present said it didn’t happen.
So, how was the fact checking for that last?
Did the Secret Service ‘Officially Debunk’ Hutchinson’s Testimony?
Trump’s driver contradicts Cassidy Hutchinson about Jan. 6 SUV altercation, GOP report says
So, did Snopes pull out the “unproven”, or “unclear”? Nope, went straight for the “FALSE”.
Cassidy Hutchinson is not a Democrat.
No, but the news outlets reporting it as though it were true were run by Democrats. But my point was really Snopes bias. They have a claim where eye witnesses state it was false, and that’s not even good enough to get to “uncertain”?
No eyewitnesses said that Hutchinson’s testimony was false. Her claim — for the hundredth time — was that she was told by Ornato this happened. She never claimed it happened, because she wasn’t there. Nobody, including Ornato, testified under oath that Ornato didn’t tell her that. The most he was willing to say was that he didn’t remember saying it.
Oh, that’s a lovely defense: Sure, Snpoes has reason to know that the SS refuted the underlining claim, but they didn’t prove she hadn’t heard a rumor.
That’s actually typical Snopes: If the don’t want to admit a claim is true, pick some variant of it that might not be technically quite right, and fact check that so that people can think the real claim is false.
Bellmore — Did you ever watch Hutchinson’s testimony? Given the opportunity to say what you accuse her of saying, she instead insisted that the record stick to her report that she heard it from Ornato, and would go no farther. You are making the mistake that Hutchinson refused to make from the other side.
Hutchinson is one of the nightmare witnesses against Trump—beautifully positioned time and again, smart, almost preternaturally well-organized, a former Trump admirer, and truthful almost to the point of over-scrupulousness. It’s no wonder that MAGA began showering her with death threats. Had Trump been forced into a trial, Hutchinson would have been one of the witnesses who put him in prison.
Brett, you’re the one trying to fact-check whether or not Trump actually lunged at the steering wheel, even though no media outlet is making that claim one way or the other. It’s completely insane. You are encouraging fact-checkers to make up claims to fact-check for no reason (other than satisfying their political agenda).
1) I am not Snopes, so I am not sure why you are attributing my statements to them.
2) Aren’t you the one who always complains when someone says “refuted” when they mean “denied”?
3) Yes, even if the SS had refuted the underlying claim, that would not make her testimony false. You have to read the actual words.
Let me be really clear:
Snopes had two claims they could examine:
1. Hutchinson’s testimony has been refuted by the SS.
2. The substance of Hutchinson’s testimony has been refuted by the SS.
Faced with the fact that the latter claim was true, they decided to “fact check” the former claim, in order to arrive at their “False”, and leave the impression that the substance was true.
So, I publicly state that I’ve heard that Stephen is an ex-con.
The Department of corrections says, “Nope, not true!”
David, in Stephen’s defense, claims that the Department of corrections has refuted my public statement.
Snopes, if they like Stephen, will fact check the claim that the DoC has denied that Stephen is an ex-con. David’s claim is “True”.
Snopes, if they dislike Stephen, will fact check the claim that the DoC has refuted the claim that I heard such a rumor. David’s claim is “False”.
Snopes plays these sorts of games all the time.
Let me be really clearer: not only are you wrong about Hutchinson’s testimony, but you are utterly wrong about what Snopes said and did. In fact, Snopes examined the “substance” and also noted that that hadn’t been refuted either.
You chose a he-said-she-said example as a left-wing lie? That’s ridiculous.
Democratic politicians do lie, but come on.
As David pointed out, your Cassidy Hutchinson example is particularly poor, but I agree that Democrats and leftists also lie. They lie intentionally and strategically, with the knowledge that what they are saying is false. They lie in order to trick ordinary people into supporting their cherished causes, and they justify doing so by reference to the stupidity of the average person: why should acts of undeniable goodness be subject to the whim and indifference of the uninterested and uninformed?
MAGA Republicans, on the other hand, lie so constantly that it is practically impossible to keep track of all the lies, much less address each and every one of them. But MAGA Republicans have very different motivations for lying than Democrats and leftists. They aren’t really trying to convince anyone, and the poor–almost laughable–quality of their lies reflects this. They lie reflexively and primarily because the truth just doesn’t matter that much to them; what matters is making them feel good about themselves, and their lies and the lies of others of their ilk do just that.
Obviously, the above is a generalization, but…
Malika, you abuse words greatly
Three errors
1) the same person, you, is typifying how teams play and then saying one can’t say someone in your category !!! is fouling more.
2) When you say “Every team wants to win aht therefore” you assume the same connetion you are trying to prove
3) and the cynics and partisans — now you are going inside peoples’ heads and reading off motivations.
You should be WH Press Secretary
It’s an issue, yes, but it’s not an inherent issue. Not everyone is hard over to one side or the other.
Generally both sides will be lying. Sure, they’ll be lying about different things, but they’ll both be lying.
But are their lies of equal importance or frequency? And you may claim that this can’t be determined objectively, but in the former case you can poll 50 people from both sides and come up with a large number of possible lies and ask them how important each is, and then if a pol comes up with a lie that can be matched to one of the lies you’d polled, use that to assign importance. As for frequency that can be counted.
And of course, sooner or later, in any political discussion, a Trump supporter will advance an argument intended to defend Trump even if the principle of the topic is independent of him
“But are their lies of equal importance or frequency?”
And my point is that you can’t realistically expect an objective answer to that question from fact checkers who are al on one side. Importance is subjective, which statements to even bother fact checking, leading up to that frequency, is subjective. Truth isn’t really subjective, but once you’re handing out conclusions like “needs context”, you’re not dealing in truth/falsity anymore.
There you go again. You should say Truth isn’t subjective and not : Truth isn’t REALLY subjective. makes all readers scratch their heads.
“needs context’ is legitimate and without it there is not truth/falsity contrary to what you say. No one asks for context on 2+2= 4 but in the real world 2 units of something in water will not always give you 4. It’s like water, it has a different size as ice or as ligquid.
I go with the statement about equal importance or frequence. After all you can’t deny that many things are a lie or not a lie according to an invisible intention of thel person saying it. That is the context YOU MUST HAVE.
One reads what you say and comes to a jarring halt upon reading :”I also think that in general people are inclined to believe a fact-check depending on the accordance with their prior conception.” EIther this applies to you or it doesn’t. And I wouild say you bend what you say very obviously.
So ” government spending falls ” this actually can be true according to how spending is calculated but false because how was changed to give that answer.
BIden did this with employment, cost of his programs, inflation, number of regulations, many changes for the sake of ‘Climate Change”
Conception is based on values not on facts. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL — if you say you base that on facts then you obviously do not believe it, it is provisional Aristotle would say , you can’t chase reasons endlessly , that is the Infinite Regress, You START with your most sure beliefs or you don’t start at all
You’re a brave soul. Anyone who thinks it’s particularly rough and tumble around here should go check out that woodchipper-packed mosh pit.
From what I’ve seen, once they have enough of a track record for people to trust they can’t be easily gamed, crowdsourced solutions like Community Notes are indeed welcomed by a clear majority. Particularly on hot-button topics, false/grossly* misleading content gets flagged relatively fast, so over time the continued absence of a corrective/contextual note implicitly strengthens the trust score. And, critically, the original content stays up: the note is just appended to it.
No system is perfect, but these sorts of schemes seem to strike a decent balance.
* I think this is realistically the best anyone can hope for — there’s simply too much room for disagreement more in the middle of the range what is and is not “misleading.”
I think we’re in agreement. Community Notes is about as good as it’s likely to get any time soon.
Does Musk have any control over Community Notes?
Because, you know what that means…
He’s been community noted himself, so I suspect not.
Elon open-sourced the Community Notes algorithm some time ago, so I strongly suspect if there was any sort of “god mode” thumb-on-the-scale capability we would have heard about it quite loudly by now.
Okay, that’s interesting. I’m not on Xitter, so I wouldn’t know…
Having a non-partisan and unbiased source of fact-checking is a good ideal. It is, however, an impossible ideal. The inherent cognitive biases and human frailties we all share prevent it from ever becoming a reality.
Therefore, appointing a fact-checker is a bad idea (no matter who it is) because of the false sense of security and unavoidable mistakes any such attempt creates. Fact-checking is and always will be a responsibility of the reader
The article reminds me of the aftermath of the scientific journal Nature‘s endorsement of Biden. It backfired. They were preaching to the converted and alienating the rest.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01537-5
This, of course, raises the question of why scientific publications would be doing political endorsements in the first place.
They shouldn’t. That is not the same as saying they shouldn’t also critique the scientific validity of any scientific comments or policy proposals made by canddates.
Nature should not have endorsed Biden. Nature should, however, be legitimately entitled to note that RFK’s opposition fo vaccination is scientifically unsupported and could lead to large number of deaths.
I agree with that. I’ll just note that it says something about Nature that they did that endorsement anyway. And not something good.
Money? People often lose sight of the fact that media businesses are primarily big businesses, not charities.
I think the evidence to date is that, if your core business isn’t political to begin with, adding politics to it actually hurts the bottom line, by alienating roughly half of your potential market.
But, if an apolitical business has been taken over by political activists, they tend to see politics as the bottom line, and not care if revenue suffers.
Regardless of how correct the science of concern is, that’s no the only issue people vote on. Also, raising up its importance is another political value judgement.
Fakeo language …just value judgement. there is no political value judgement. Abortion is killing a human life or it isn’t. And the value starts the whole chain off, and the politics is you trying to justify where you start.
Abortion is killing a human life or it isn’t.
If I go along with the Bible, it isn’t.
Or possibly I go along with the idea that a fetus goes from being not human at all to being fully human over 9 months.
From long experience I see you are too cowardly to say what YOU think. So I won’t give you more rope.
The question was whether politicians saying true things benefit from endorsements of science journals, as opposed to politicians saying false things (i.e., not supported by science). The study revealed that it didn’t make much difference — many people’s ideas of what is true and false are based not on looking into the evidence but by believing what they want to believe. Any scientist knows this is hazardous (it’s called a Type I error). We live in the real world, where gravity, evolution, etc. are actual things that bite us in the butt if we don’t believe them.
Wrong on both examples.
Gravity is not a thing, certainly not in Einstein’s curved spacetime. That error of yours is called reification. Like Freud with ID , EGO and SUPERGEGO. they don’t have an existence just because they have a name.
Evolution is certainly not a thing, it has no nature or essence, it doesn’t exist outsife of evovling things and it is not even linguiatically defensible as most people use the word
Speaking of “On the Origin of Species” a philosopher noted
” A more accurate title for Darwin’s book would be the Origin of Varieties. Darwin’s use of the word “species,” however, is contradictory. “To say that species are fixed is tautology; to say that they change is to say that they do not exist, Why does Darwin obstinately say that they transform themselves, rather than saying simply that they do not exist?” (pp. 140-144)”
““To say that species are fixed is tautology; to say that they change is to say that they do not exist,”
If you’re going to take that 4D perspective, basically no extended object ‘exists’, because they didn’t always exist, and won’t always exist. We’re looking at a 3D slice through a 4D braid, you know. It’s unfair to look outside the slice to say something isn’t real.
Pure bullshit. Logically, you are only denying that ‘real’ has any meaning at all.
It is not a 4D perspective under any circumstances. And you are misstating your source : FLATLAND by Abbott
“Doubtless we cannot see that other higher Spaceland now, because we have no eye in our stomachs.”
― Edwin A. Abbott, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions
Speaking of “On the Origin of Species” a philosopher [Etienne Gilson] noted
“To say that species are fixed is tautology”
Utter bilge. To say that species are fixed is a claim unsupported by science. (And even if species were fixed, it would not necessarily be within the scientific definition of species that they are immutable,)
Etienne Gilson may have been a fine philosopher from a theological perspective, but as a philosopher of science, he’s an ignoramus.
Actually they alienated everybody regardless of being converted or not by PREACHING. I do not want and never did want a scientific journal to PREACH anything.
For decades we’ve had to deal with conservatism’s war on free speech: hippies, flags, peace signs, porn, Disney, libraries, 1619, even Facebook-before-times, etc.
But you hillbillies get your wrists slapped by a private company for violating their policies, and now you’re free speech warriors. The hypocrisy is obvious but I nevertheless welcome you to the cause. So now lets work on the other things I mention above
What a dumb post…I doubt any of my neighbors, co-workers, or friends gives a sht about any of that except porn and publicly-funded libraries (of course you just said ‘libraries’ because you are the very type of the person you are raging against.
Proof: Let’s work on the other things I TALKED ABOUT . But who are you, a nobody
Lol, a goldmine!
They’re drunk on power. Give them their moment
See what Zuck has to say about it. He says that the fact checkers and moderators WEREN’T enforcing the company’s policies a lot of the time. They’d hired outside people to do it for them, and those people had turned out to have a political agenda, where they weren’t just being abusive.
Here’s some excerpts:
“We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth, but the fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the US.”
“Second, we’re going to simplify our content policies and get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse.”
“The only way that we can push back on this global trend is with the support of the US government, and that’s why it’s been so difficult over the past four years when even the US government has pushed for censorship.”
So, he confirms the moderators and fact checkers were politically biased.
He confirms that their moderation policies were censoring mainstream American views.
He confirms that the US government was pressuring them to engage in censorship.
I think he’s actually relieved to have an administration that isn’t going to force them to censor, and will have their back against foreign governments demanding censorship.
Bellmore — Zuckerberg said all that to demonstrate willingness to kowtow to MAGA. If he was even awake when he said it, he knew MAGA would take it as better proof of MAGA loyalty if Zuckerberg showed he was willing to lie.
If he was even awake when he said it
Try to keep up. We’re talking about Zuckerberg, not Biden.
What’s amazing about this comment (or not, really) is that anyone who has followed Brett for a while knows that if this were reversed he would be screaming that Zuck was just being coerced by the incoming administration to say these things.
You have to consider what Zuck just said along with what he did in Florida in November and what he donated in December. It appears to be the manifestation of some kind of Stockholm Syndrome…
However, it is also possible that he really doesn’t give a shit about anything except making money, and tugging his forelock so spectacularly now may prevent Trump from interfering with his business ventures. Can’t say he’s wrong.
There’s 3 really spineless ‘what the hell ‘statements here
It appears to be
It is also possible
Can’t say he is wrong.
Well, no , because you have nothing definite that could say he is wrong or right about.
And cam back to post this PS — I am not a fan of Zuck at all. But your kind of speculation –well, it’s very Zuck-like
Thanks. What do I owe you, doctor?
Hoble — ever hear about something known as a “common carrier”?
The owner of X would disagree with you
[deleted]
Leave aside that something approaching ideal fact checking has been in use at The New Yorker magazine for many decades. Fact checking was always a hopeless, inadequate ambition for giantistic social media platforms—way too labor intensive. To hire enough fact checkers to make any difference would have killed a business model based on unlimited growth of cost-free content. Which is why the giantistic platforms decided to abandon the fact-checking pretext now.
If we want a serious discussion of internet misinformation, we have to begin once again with a sober look at the problem.
Here is the problem:
Internet fans demand a personal power;
To publish;
World-wide;
Anonymously;
Cost-free;
Anything at all;
Including attacks intended to thwart the public life of nations;
Including frauds, hoaxes and AI deep fakes;
Including libel-for-profit business models;
Without liability for defamation of innocent third parties;
Without prior editing;
Without post-publication take-downs;
By use of distribution networks maintained and paid for by others;
To exploit attention of curated audiences assembled by others;
With government interventions to mandate by law that it all happens just that way;
Without government censorship.
That is a publishing power far greater than any publisher on earth—during the entire span of human history—has ever enjoyed. Nor is there anyone now, in or out of government, with power to make it happen.
It is impossible that it could happen. Those demands taken together remain inherently paradoxical. Any attempt to put that publishing regime in operation would promptly dismantle the publishing apparatus it was intended to exploit.
That is why neither the NYT, Fox News, the Hearst Newspaper chain, MSNBC, Joseph Pulitzer, CBS in its prime, PRAVDA, or even the tiny but formidable New Yorker, ever enjoyed anything like that kind of publishing power.
An ambition to put publishing power defined that way into the hands of every Joe and Jill Keyboard world-wide cannot withstand even a moment’s scrutiny. Yet it remains a non-negotiable demand. A demand which has become a perpetual stumbling block in the way of efforts to reform an internet publishing system which satisfies almost no one, except the giantistic platform owners—and lately, would-be tyrants delighted to be gifted with something approaching nationwide publishing control.
That history of foolish ambition, private greed, and demands predicated on ignorance, has now become crisis. To the horror of observers world-wide, the public life of the United States has lately devolved into an alliance among a corrupt government, and a few private publishing oligarchs bent overtly on private wealth, political power, and unaccountable mass control of everyone.
Is it possible yet to recognize that? Or must stubbornness and ignorance among internet utopians remain unbudged, to await more-catastrophic evolutions yet to come?
Look, it’s failed publisher and wannabe-censor, SL. Go away failure.
Vinni, however vapid it may be, I value your response. I have to. Apparently nobody else has the nerve, even anonymously, to say anything so stupid—let alone to try to engage substantively.
Here is a hint, the first rule of critical thinking about your own publishing content. Before you click, Submit,” ask yourself, “How do I know that?”
That way, you will avoid looking like an idiot among those who know facts to show how wrong you are. Or is it your ambition to mobilize the opinions of only others as uninformed as you?
Engage your idiocy substantively, why? That’s pointless. And part of the reason your idiocy rarely draws substantive responses.
The first rule of critical thinking, by failed publisher SL. No thanks.
Here’s a rule, know when to shut up and fade into the sunset.
QED
Go away. You’re not 1/1,000,000th as smart as you think you are.
Vinni, I remain content that I do just a bit better than you do at reckoning how smart I am not.
Swing and a miss. Strike 3, you’re out.
let alone to try to engage substantively
You don’t seem to understand the difference between your long-winded bullshit and “substance”.
Winston S. Churchill — ‘A good speech should be like a woman’s skirt; long enough to cover the subject and short enough to create interest.
I am a member of the Community Notes group on X, and I’d like to highlight a few features of that system that explain why it works:
1. Community Notes are written by the community, but you have to demonstrate your skill at successfully rating notes before you are allowed to write — a “successful” rating being one that eventually promotes a note to general visibility.
2. No Community Note receives automatic visibility, it has to demonstrate that it is accepted across a range of raters first. The vast majority of notes just never get seen on X by anyone except other Note members. And that’s a good thing, too, because the vast majority of notes are either not needed, or are just opinions (in my opinion!) Since a note stays inert unless actively “voted up”, it makes it much, much easier on the raters. You don’t need to rate everything, just “rate by exception” — rate the really bad ones, and the really good ones. The rest can just stay on the pile.
3. Raters can comment on why a Note is or isn’t needed. This gives a chance for Note writers to perhaps defend an edge case where a Note should be allowed. Most of the time, though, comments are of the “please stop abusing Community Notes to express your opinion” variety.
4. Winning Notes (that is, Notes which earn the right to become visible) generally have these qualities: they are factual, not opinion; they keep people from being misled; they link to quality sources; they are short; they are sometimes funny.
Those are the qualities winning Notes are intended to have, but do they really or are they just popular?
The key point is that they have to be popular among people who often disagree with each other.
Correct. Specifically, a Note must win the approval of people who have tended to vote in opposite directions on similar Notes. A winning Note has to be pretty useful to gain enough attention, and toned-down enough to avoid being dismissed out of hand.
It’s not a perfect system, but certainly much better than fact checkers.
DaveM — I suggest a test of that premise. Use academic history as an example.
We know the past is what it is; parts of that record may continue misunderstood, but none of what actually happened will any longer be subject to change. Thus, academic historians see their task not as a balance of opinions, but instead as an effort to discover by accurate inferences—inferences enabled by using historical survivals to critique each other—the long-ago forgotten facts about what did happen.
Here is a contrasting view of interpretation, made with an eye to assessing present-minded interpretive practices, by philosopher William James:
Reason assumes to settle things by weighing them against each other without prejudice, partiality or excitement; but what affairs in the concrete are settled by is, and always will be, just prejudices, partialities, cupidities and excitements.
So, two contrasting styles of interpretation, as posited by the Notes methodology. What do you think would be added to folks’ insight about what actually happened in the past, if academic history changed its method, to insist on endorsement from both those camps for every proposed historical inference?
What is Truth? I just made that up, like Parkinsonian Fuck Face did with his “Stump” Speech
My favorite one in where PolitiFact rated Hillary’s false claim that “We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.” as “True” even though most of the agencies didn’t participate in the determination.
It then rated Trump’s correct claim that it was only three or four agencies that made the determination as, “Yes, but needs context”
But she was wrong, doesn’t that count 🙂
And one of those intelligence agencies disagreed with the conclusion. It thought the Russians were just trying to undermine whoever wins, and not trying to influence the election.
Wow…so undermine whoever wins is NOT influencing the election.
I am gonna run for the door
Interesting comment.
Even looking at those Politifact articles in a light most favorable to Trump, his only argument is a triviality about whether the Director of National Intelligence speaks on behalf of the US’ 17 intelligence agencies.
No, that wasn’t his argument.
You do understand that “The Director of National Intelligence said X” and “17 intelligence agencies said X” are different claims, right?
Unless the Director of National Intelligence speaks for the 17 intelligence agencies… As far as I can tell, the DNI does indeed speak on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC), which is made up of the country’s 17 individual intelligence agencies.
“Clinton said, “We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.”
We don’t know how many separate investigations into the attacks they were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country’s 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations’ emails.”
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2016/item/1635-joint-dhs-and-odni-election-security-statement
Perhaps Clinton shouldn’t have included the word, “all”, which implies that all 17 agencies individually investigated and reached the same conclusion, but that hardly changes the relevant point she was making: that the USIC had reached a consensus about the issue.
I think “all” is mildly misleading and “collectively” would have been better, so if I were Politifact I would have rated her claim as only “Mostly True”.
Cripes.
Certain topics draw the goofiest out of the woodwork.
(looks up next instance of a full moon)
Monday. Well no wonder! 🙂
My guess is that the decline of fact-checkers is mostly because of bad covid fact-checking, more than political bias. Yes, there is political bias, but we expect political bias.
There’s also the fact that it is only people inclined to care about facts who are likely to become fact checkers…
More accurately, only people who care what other people believe are the facts. Such people don’t necessarily want those beliefs about the facts to be accurate.
Can’t make sense of that…are you immune to that charge you level at ‘such people’ ? And why then use ‘necessarily’ ? What is the point of that. Are you engaging in automatic writing.
Most people do care about the facts, call it human nature.
Even a liar gets mad when you lie to them. Or a thief when you steal from them
It’s the constant spinning and gaslighting, too. Being told “everything’s fine, never better” when we can all see with our own eyes that the proverbial has hit the fan. And, being told over and over that if XYZ happens, then it’s the END OF ALL THINGS RIGHT AND GOOD; and then when XYZ actually happens, all those same fear mongers are acting like they never said word one.
It just makes people mad.
I finally listened to Zuckerberg’s thing. Besides the painful awkwardness, I think you guys got overly excited about the fact-checking stuff and missed the real meat.
He talked a lot about “traditional media.” Pressure from traditional media, narratives from traditional media, censorship within traditional media…
Remember, early on Facebook tried really hard to compete directly with traditional media. It had the “News Feed” and touted how many people were “getting their news from Facebook.” Sharing links to traditional media articles was common and encouraged.
I think more than anything else, this is Zuck realizing that over time, Facebook has become all the things he never liked about traditional media in the first place. This is his break-up speech. He’s actively trying to distance Facebook from traditional media really for the first time in its history.
Insightful.
I just don’t think it has done journalism much good to have a group of people specifically designated as misinformation experts or fact-checkers — that should be everyone’s job.
Well, duh. Annenberg’s FactCheck.org (the website launched in 2003), Politifact (2007), and others only had any reason to exist because the inherent fact checking that was supposed to be happening in all news reporting wasn’t sufficient anymore.
Maybe it was lower journalistic standards for objectivity, or maybe it was a lower demand for objective political news. Or, maybe it was both of those and more.
But the only things that people can do, if they care about objective facts, are:
– to only consume media that is diligent about being accurate and truthful,
– only support politicians that are diligent about being accurate and truthful,
– only make factual claims, themselves, that they can trust are accurate and truthful,
– make a real effort to learn how to know when something is backed by objective evidence and how to counter one’s own biases.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. – Richard Feynman, Commencement speech, CalTech, 1974
Feynman I like with some serious reservations. His religious views are pure unfounded horseshit
===================
One time, his father showed him a picture of the Pope in the paper, and said:
“Now look at these humans. Here’s one human standing here, and all those others are bowing in front of him. Now what’s the difference?”
“The difference is the hat he’s wearing. But, this man has the same problems as everybody else: he eats dinner; he goes to the bathroom. He’s a human being.”
===================
Now both Feynman and his father make serious logical missteps.
While some may treat the Pope with an inappropriate adulation, it is the office that is being respected by a Catholic who knows what a Pope is an isn’t. ,
A cursory glance at this pile of comments evinces only one reaction from me , those who know least about Statistics are the most confident they are correct
WHICH ALWASY REMINDS ME OF THIS utterly unbelievable thing that I witnessed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_i0QrK2814
A cursory glance at this pile of comments evinces only one reaction from me , those who know least about Statistics are the most confident they are correct
WHICH ALWAYS REMINDS ME OF THIS utterly unbelievable thing that I witnessed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_i0QrK2814