Difference between revisions of "Fact checking"
(legal case John Stossel against Facebook) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|image=facebook-factchecks-offg-again.jpg | |image=facebook-factchecks-offg-again.jpg | ||
|image_width=360px | |image_width=360px | ||
| − | |||
|constitutes=propaganda, Orwellian language | |constitutes=propaganda, Orwellian language | ||
|so_called=1 | |so_called=1 | ||
| Line 12: | Line 11: | ||
==Launch== | ==Launch== | ||
| − | "Fact checking" rose to prominence as part of the ill-fated "[[fake news website]]" campaign was launched in Autumn 2016, most notably with the [[Washington Post]] promotion of the [[Propornot List]] that was printed under the name [[Craig Timberg]]. | + | "Fact checking" rose to prominence as part of the ill-fated "[[fake news website]]" campaign was launched in Autumn [[2016]], most notably with the [[Washington Post]] promotion of the [[Propornot List]] that was printed under the name [[Craig Timberg]]. |
==Concerns== | ==Concerns== | ||
The process of "fact checking" assumes that there are impartial people (or algorithms). In fact such "[[fact checkers]]" do not, arguably cannot, exist.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/03/30/report-supposedly-impartial-fact-checkers-driven-political-prejudices/</ref> | The process of "fact checking" assumes that there are impartial people (or algorithms). In fact such "[[fact checkers]]" do not, arguably cannot, exist.<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/03/30/report-supposedly-impartial-fact-checkers-driven-political-prejudices/</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Facebook=== | ||
| + | In a legal case [[John Stossel]] has brought forth against [[Facebook]], the later decided to claim that it's "fact-checks" are "protected opinion".<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/12/13/facebook-admits-in-court-that-fact-checks-are-just-opinion/</ref><ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20211209171725/https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Facebook-admits-its-fact-check-is-opinion-page-2.pdf</ref> In US law, a factual claim that is not true can be litigated, while opinion is protected speech - only Facebook, up until that point, wanted to make everyone believe that these are reliable checks-of-facts. | ||
==Artificial intelligence== | ==Artificial intelligence== | ||
{{FA|Artificial intelligence}} | {{FA|Artificial intelligence}} | ||
| − | Various efforts have been made to automate the "fact checking" process, but as of 2019, the fundamental obstacle that computers cannot reliably parse English (or other human languages) remains insurmountable, rendering automated "fact checking" inherently fallible. | + | Various efforts have been made to automate the "fact checking" process, but as of [[2019]], the fundamental obstacle that computers cannot reliably parse English (or other human languages) remains insurmountable, rendering automated "fact checking" inherently fallible. |
{{SMWDocs}} | {{SMWDocs}} | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 00:01, 15 December 2021
 "Fact checking"(propaganda, Orwellian language)   | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Interest of | • David Grimes • Mark Little (Journalist) • Social Observatory for Disinformation and Social Media Analysis |
| A thinly veiled effort to counter suspicion in official narratives as promoted by the commercially-controlled media. i.e. "Trust us, we've fact checked this article". | |
"Fact checking" is a phrase used by the commercially-controlled media to suggest the open-minded checking of facts. In fact, the activities of fact checkers are de facto tightly circumscribed by the funding institution, and may include promotion of deliberate misinformation.[1]
Contents
Launch
"Fact checking" rose to prominence as part of the ill-fated "fake news website" campaign was launched in Autumn 2016, most notably with the Washington Post promotion of the Propornot List that was printed under the name Craig Timberg.
Concerns
The process of "fact checking" assumes that there are impartial people (or algorithms). In fact such "fact checkers" do not, arguably cannot, exist.[2]
In a legal case John Stossel has brought forth against Facebook, the later decided to claim that it's "fact-checks" are "protected opinion".[3][4] In US law, a factual claim that is not true can be litigated, while opinion is protected speech - only Facebook, up until that point, wanted to make everyone believe that these are reliable checks-of-facts.
Artificial intelligence
- Full article: Artificial intelligence
- Full article: Artificial intelligence
Various efforts have been made to automate the "fact checking" process, but as of 2019, the fundamental obstacle that computers cannot reliably parse English (or other human languages) remains insurmountable, rendering automated "fact checking" inherently fallible.
An example
| Page name | Description |
|---|---|
| "Fact checker" | An individual or group trusted to investigate the truth of news. In practice, professional fact checkers test whether news conforms to their employers' opinions. |
Related Quotation
| Page | Quote |
|---|---|
| Answering Russia's Strategic Narratives | “Russia’s disinformation campaigns have enabled the Kremlin to sow divisions in Europe’s societies. Countering these actions requires the development of effective, multi-layered strategies, tactics and capabilities. HCSS organizes a conference on 22 June 2017 to bring together and expand upon a network of stakeholders involved in countering Russian societal interference in European countries.
Through the exchange of governmental responses used at the military and foreign policy level, and the experiences of societal bottom-up initiatives and fact-checking collaborative initiatives, we can begin to build an increasingly coherent response to Russia’s strategic narratives. The explicit goal is to foster a self-sustaining network that can act as a dissemination point in countering Russian disinformation and other kinds of malign interference. Through the stimulation of debate, participants will produce a concise overview that will take stock of best practices and perspectives for action.” |
Related Document
| Title | Type | Publication date | Author(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document:Why some people are spreading false rumours about the Texas gunman | Article | 9 May 2023 | Shayan Sardarizadeh Mike Wendling | The BBC factchecks the recent 2023 Allen, Texas outlet mall shooting regarding the alleged Nazism of the Hispanic shooter |
References
- ↑ https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/20/facebook-labels-224-misinformation/
- ↑ https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/03/30/report-supposedly-impartial-fact-checkers-driven-political-prejudices/
- ↑ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/12/13/facebook-admits-in-court-that-fact-checks-are-just-opinion/
- ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20211209171725/https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Facebook-admits-its-fact-check-is-opinion-page-2.pdf
